Illegal File Trading Draws Two P2P Raids In Europe

had3l writes "Police in Finland raided the operation of a popular Bit Torrent site and arrested 34 people, 30 of which were volunteers who helped moderate the site. This comes right after the MPAA reported that it would start suing tracker servers." An anonymous reader points to a story (currently at the top of RespectP2P.org's homepage) about the raid yesterday morning of Dutch eDonkey sites Releases4u and Shareconnector.

Comments

Tin Foil

[JustinRLynn]

Hmmm, no wish to upset but if it starts in other countries no doubt the MPAA and RIAA will try it here (with the help of their favorite police depts, of course)

Re:Tin Foil

[mordors9]

Why do I have visions of SWAT teams busting down doors with automatic weapons at the ready into rooms of nervous nerds sitting at computer screens sort of akin to the Elian Gonzalez photos?

Re:Tin Foil

[The AtomicPunk]

What happens when they bust in the door on the nerds that are better armed? :)

Re:Tin Foil

[mordors9]

Then we do the Branch Davidian thing. Circle the building and it will accidentally burn down of course.

Re:Tin Foil

[bigberk]

stuck the word "illegal" in front of it hoping to cast an evil light when the people are pursuing something that really only pisses of the greedy but ultimately doing nothing wrong

I think that's right. There is nothing inherently wrong about copying media for your personal enjoyment. In Canada I even pay my blank recording media levvy, so I already know that all artists are being compensated -- I feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with downloading pictures, music, and videos.

The things I download are definitely NOT things I would go out and buy, even if I couldn't download them. For the small number of things I have downloaded and particularly liked, I have actually bought. If I didn't find them on the Internet I would have never been exposed to them.

The reality is, trading files, downloading media for personal entertainment does not really hurt business, it's within your rights under fair use of copyright law, and simply put does not violate any morality standards. The industry has tried to influence the societal standard by lobbying government to change copyright laws (WIPO in USA and EU) and has been successful.

Don't let them brainwash you. Keep downloading, swapping files because there is nothing wrong with what you are doing. They are fscking with the laws and the media to confuse society.

Re:Tin Foil

[WoodenRobot]

You never hear of "illegal object seizers" (theives?). Or "illegal life removers" (killers).

I have a feeling we might hear of Freedom Hating Illegal Filetraders soon. It has a certain zeitgeisty ring to it :)

Re:Tin Foil

[TarrVetus]

For the small number of things I have downloaded and particularly liked, I have actually bought. If I didn't find them on the Internet I would have never been exposed to them.

I know exactly what you're talking about. The music I like isn't really supported by popular media. If I hadn't downloaded the music I listen to I never would have been exposed to it and wouldn't have bought anywhere near the number of albums I have. The fact is that I found every band I listen to through P2P and Bittorrent. And now that Bittorrent is catching on I'm finding myself doing the same thing with movies; frankly, the DVDs offer special features and such that I just can't get online or aren't at near the quality a good old fashioned MPAA-brand DVD, so I usually buy those, too.

The industry needs to understand that P2P networks and the like are a tool to spread culture and product awareness. Because of 'illegal' file sharing skeptical consumers (like me) are able to try before they buy. And more than likely, if the consumers don't go out and buy the CD with the song they downloaded or DVD of the movie they watched they probably weren't going to buy it, anyway.

Re:Tin Foil

[bigberk]

The industry needs to understand that P2P networks and the like are a tool to spread culture and product awareness

Too bad the industry is more like the horse carriage maker in the day of the automobile. Their approach is throwing lots of money at politicians and media, clinging to an old fashioned model that has simply been rendered obsolete.

Re:Tin Foil

[Mr. Slippery]

Why do I have visions of SWAT teams busting down doors with automatic weapons at the ready

Welcome to the "War on Copying"! Sure to be every bit as successful as the "War on Drugs". You can look forward to a violent black market in bootleg CDs, further erosion of those civil liberties left after 30 years of "War on Drugs" and 3 year "War on Terror", and absolutely no effect on people's desire or ability to make copies of stuff.

Re:Tin Foil

[kz45]

It's even worse when groups like the FSF go after people for GNU "violations". If The GNU was truly free, it would be in the public domain available to anyone that wanted to use it. After all, if a business decides to use source code released under the GNU, the original source code is still free.

Additions are the only thing kept hidden (which in my opinion, should allowed to be kept hidden, if a person chooses).

Re:Tin Foil

[bigberk]

Ah, but it does hurt business... Consider this. If you devalue the property, you hurt the business

(Heh and why do you pro-recording industry people always post AC?) I disagree. I'm a software developer, and 100% of my income currently comes from sales of my own software. All intellectual property. Highly guarded copyrighted stuff, right?

However I also recognize that the more well known my product is, the more money I'm going to make in the long run. For this reason I am very liberal with the free demos I give out for my software. I also don't pursue, nor am I upset about what some might call "warez" versions of my software.

Re:Tin Foil

[ichimunki]

Nice dark fantasy, but drugs are a black market good that are illegal to obtain at any price, hence there is no way to stimulate supply except to raise the prices on drugs until sellers are willing to break the law (their profits offset their assumed risks). The only price competition in the drug market is with other illegal drug sellers (and perhaps a handful of legal substitutes like alcohol). With bootlegs, the goods are available legally, so there is an automatic limit to how much an illegal seller can charge since the bootlegs are direct competitors with the legal copies.

Our real concern here should not be whether the jackbooted thugs are coming for the makers of bootleg CDs, but whether there will eventually be a erosion on fair use. We are already seeing some of that when it comes to things like sampling, parodies, etc. The only bootlegs that will persist in a "war on copying" are those works that would be illegal to sell at any price. Other than that, my own desire to make copies goes away pretty quickly when the risks are higher than the retail price of the work in question.

Re:Tin Foil

[plague3106]

If you devalue the property, you hurt the business.

It only has a value based on what people are willing to pay. They aren't listenign to that, instead saying 'i believe this is worth x dollars' when in reality its not. I can try to sell my car for double what i paid for it, but no one will buy it. So by your logic, another auto dealer selling the same car for a lower price is now causing me harm, and I should have legal recourse. Bull.

you don't like the cost of something, don't buy it. That will send the message much better than stealing it.

Yes, because of course I didn't buy it b/c it was too expensive, not because I didn't have extra money for it, or I bought something else instead. The fact is they don't know why I didn't buy it. Now if alot of people are downloadig, but few are buying, that's actually a good indicator that people do want your product, but aren't willing to pay the price you artifically set.

If you dont buy it they lower the price until you get a mutually acceptable price and move on. You are arbitrarily setting the price to zero and where do they negotiate from there?

They are abirtrarly setting the price to $20, and where do I negotiate from there? You can use that same arguemnt from both sides. Note that I haven't seen record prices drop in an attempt to sell more, they've actually been going up. If i download, its says i'm willing to pay at least 0, but not 20 for your product. So maybe they should see that and lower prices to 10. And lower it more if that still doesn't work. If it gets to be so low, maybe the product is really worth $0. Just because someone put effort into a CD doesn't mean its worth anything at all.

Get some morals here.

I have some, the industry does not. Maybe they should get some first, and see if that helps.

You are not entitled to everything you want

Just as they are not entitled to make money from every CD they print.

Re:Tin Foil

[ifwm]

"very liberal with the free demos I give out for my software."

Which would be great, and would apply to music, if P2P was populated by DEMOS of music and software. It's populated by the real thing, which when downloaded could very easily cost the artist a sale. You might be fine with that, but it's arrogant to try to speak for all artists.

"I also don't pursue, nor am I upset about what some might call "warez" versions of my software."

Most likely because it's not worth it to you. There are probably far too few people in this category to matter. Again, why do you feel you can make this decision for everyone? What if I was in the same position, but wanted to vigorously defend my rights? How can you justify taking that away?

And you'll notice I'm not AC

Re:Tin Foil

[Catbeller]

And drag our screaming kids back into the fire when they try to jump? Sorry, that was on tape.

You brought it up; it's offtopic but I hate to see the "Jackbooted Thugs" murdering poor religionists meme reinforced.

They immolated their own kids with themselves; they were stark staring mad -- and should have had the kids taken away. There was outstanding evidence they were heavily armed, abusing kids, and thought themselves at war with the "government". They weren't victims of anything except their own mad vision.

Their kids were the victims.

Look at it this way: what if the people dragging their kids back into the flames had been, oh, Iranians, doing it in the name of Allah? Is being caucasian and southern a pass to do things you would consider religious fanaticism on the steets of Teheran?

Re:Tin Foil

[AviLazar]

Because the SWAT teams received reports from the MPAA/RIAA that these nerds were highly trained terrorist and counter-terrorist units (think: CounterStrike).

Re:Tin Foil

[The Illegal Pirates]

Dear Sir or Madam:

We are pleased to inform you that we, the Illegal Pirates of the Internet who Must Steal Everything No Matter What have resumed activity on slashdot, and will proceed to troll it, thereby committing theft of your precious time. Assuming your billing rate is $30/hour, and it takes you one minute to read this post, we have stolen 50 cents from you.

Furthermore, we resolve to infringe your intellectual property by violating your copyright on the phrase Freedom Hating Illegal Filetraders. We intend to use this phrase in a variety of posts without crediting you in any way, shape, or form.

In accordance with our previous declarations regarding copyrights which shall be infringed, we duly inform you that THE BEIGE OF A DAMNED ELDER GOD YEARNING TO ENFOLD YOU IN THE HORRIBLE CLUTCHES OF ITS CLOYINGLY INSIPID YET AGGRESSIVELY MALEVOLENT TINT continue to wreak upon ye unfortunates the HORROR THAT IS SLASHDOT IT SECTION RADIOACTIVE BEIGE. Said beige is so horrific that we must post this in a non-biege story due to the fact that we cannot bear to enter a beige story.

Lastly, we point out that we, The Illegal Pirates of the Internet Who Must Steal Everything No Matter What, have changed our name from The Illegal Pirates of the Internet Who Must Violate Every Copyright No Matter What to The Illegal Pirates of the Internet Who Must Steal Everything No Matter What. We feel that our new name updates our image and plays to key demographics.

Signed,

The Illegal Pirates of the Internet Who Must Steal Everything No Matter What

p.s. hahaha all your copyright are belong to use make your time you have no chance to profit!!1!

Re:Tin Foil

[Schnarl]

They explain in their documentation/FAQ why the violations are important to protect against. If just anyone were to grab the source, use it and then close it, then you're just doing free programming and their taking credit for YOUR work.

You may as well offer to be a programmer to any random company for free and sign an NDA as well.

(yay for me being bored enough to respond to a troll)

Re:Tin Foil

[WoodenRobot]

Furthermore, we resolve to infringe your intellectual property by violating your copyright on the phrase Freedom Hating Illegal Filetraders.

Darn you! Darn you to heck!

*shakes fists*

Re:Tin Foil

[kz45]

They explain in their documentation/FAQ why the violations are important to protect against. If just anyone were to grab the source, use it and then close it, then you're just doing free programming and their taking credit for YOUR work.

You may as well offer to be a programmer to any random company for free and sign an NDA as well.


I don't enjoy feeding the trolls, but I will anyway. As I said in my previous post, this is not freedom. This is an organization (the FSF) attempting to force their propaganda on everyone else. If you are going to release your source with restrictions, it's fine, but don't pass it off as freedom.

Privacy

[Threni]

How does PeerGuardian help here? What about FreeNet or Mute? Any news of increased traffic on those networks?

Re:Privacy

[zalle]

PeerGuardian helps in the fashion that it blocks all the _HUNDREDS_ of incoming connections the finnish police and various trade organizations have been trying. Yes, on my computer.

Also, there's a rumor going about that the finnish police have actually made backdoors into a lot of peoples computers by infecting the torrents that were available on finreactor. Quite illegal, if true. That's it for the ethics of the police I guess.

Re:Privacy

[DaHat]

I've got a friend who got C&Ded for downloading a tv show while running PeerGuardian with all of the latest updates.

Unfortunately, IP blocking like PG is pretty much worthless. Yes, it's easy to find out the IP's of the corporate parents, but they need only get a consumer level DSL/Cable line or have some of their employees run their pirate hunting software at home... and they will be virtually impossible to track down.

Re:Privacy

[Lord Kano]

Yes, it?s easy to find out the IP?s of the corporate parents, but they need only get a consumer level DSL/Cable line or have some of their employees run their pirate hunting software at home... and they will be virtually impossible to track down.

They will also be much less effective. Someone's DSL or cable connection isn't going to be nearl as effective as the corporate T3 when it comes to searching out file swappers.

LK

Re:Privacy

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Yeh, and companies like BayTSP don't have literally hundreds of consumer-level dialup, DSL and cable accounts all ganged together, searching for this stuff.

Re:Privacy

[Motherfucking Shit]

Someone's DSL or cable connection isn't going to be nearl as effective as the corporate T3 when it comes to searching out file swappers.

I don't agree with this line of thought. My cable connection is more than capable of finding hundreds of people who are sharing $FILE on a given P2P network. Why wouldn't this work for the industry?

Judging by any number of past gaffes - like C&D notices going out for Professor Usher's lecture, OpenOffice tarballs, etc. - it's obvious that nobody at the C&D farms is actually downloading the material to see if it really infringes. They're just doing searches, correlating filenames to IP addresses, and pumping out warnings. DSL or cable is more than sufficient for this.

If RIAA/MPAA aren't doing some of their scanning over consumer broadband lines, they're even more daft than I thought.

Re:Privacy

[91degrees]

Well, do they? It's technically possible, but are they willing to spend that much on that many consumer accounts?

They're a business. Motivated by profit. They're more likely to do it the cheap way and ignore people with PG, because they don't feel they're losing money from it. If more people atart to use it then perhaps they will do it this way.

Re:Privacy

[Threni]

Why? A series of Simpsons DVDs around £40 in the UK, whereas an audio CD is £16 and a computer game usually less than £40. Some of the films being traded on P2P networks have been shown on TV, and much of the music from audio CDs have been played on the radio, so it's not really all that different.

Re:Privacy

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Think about it. The RIAA has BayTSP on retainer, as does the MPAA and SBA. How much do each pay BayTSP per year, $150,000 ? $200,000 ?

So, that's $600,000 right there, and doesn't take into account all the other smaller companies that contract to BayTSP. If they spend half on those accounts, that might be a nice business model. Especially since they'd not have to show a profit right away... this is the kind of business that big investors love.

And I might even be lowballing the fees they pay, remember, they claim losses of millions of dollars every year. If they actually believe those numbers, they'd be willing to spend a large fraction of the difference.

Re:Privacy

[OverlordQ]

Thank god they can't sign up for AOL or some other ISP and track you that way.

Re:Privacy

[rainman_bc]

And it also has a severe memory leak that makes this program almost completely unusable.

Doesn't matter anyway, file swapping is legal in Canada. Yay!

Re:Privacy

[91degrees]

I'm sure they have the resources to do this. The question is whether they would choose to.

They have a retainer from the various 'AA's. They'll probably be able to ask for the same amount whether they account for PG or not. All things being equal, presumably they'll look for the easy (i.e. cheap) targets unless there's some positive incentive to go after the harder targets.

Re:Privacy

[Lord Kano]

And I might even be lowballing the fees they pay, remember, they claim losses of millions of dollars every year. If they actually believe those numbers, they'd be willing to spend a large fraction of the difference.

Problem is that they DON'T believe their own inflated numbers. I'd believe that the losses are in the millions, but nowhere near the billions that the movie, music, and software industries combined claim. It's nonsensical. They know this, but it helps them in their prosecution of offenders.

For example, if your servers get hacked the FBI will not get involved unless the damage is above a preset threshhold.

LK

Re:Privacy

[Cramer]

how the f*** do you "infect the torrents"? These things aren't word documents with macros; they are strictly formated files with no executable data in them. The client WILL ignore fields it doesn't recognize. There's no chance of buffer overflows (unless the client is really shitty) as every field has the size specified in the torrent.

Please take a few minutes to understand the technology before repeating the BS rumors of the insane and criminally stupid.

[Btw, that torrent is usable anywhere... linux, windows nt 4.0 on an alpha, BeOS on BeBox, VxWorks (the RTOS inside your cable modem),...]

Set themselves up for this

[gowen]

... by having moderators. If you've got moderators, and they're making absolutely no attempt to curtail copyright infringement, you're pretty much asking to be considered an accessory. No "common carrier" defense if you're actively deleting and moderating your sites content.

Idiots.

Re:Set themselves up for this

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it.
What if my reply would contain information that once seen by a slashdot moderator would require an immediate police intervention?
Would slashdot moderator be liable as accessory for seeing my comment and not calling the police?

Re:Set themselves up for this

[sangdrax]

At least here in Holland, owners of websites are responsible for their content, even if that content was put there by users. It is the website that chooses to publish the information; that the means to do so by users are fully automated and unchecked does not free them of this.

The 'common carrier defense' does not hold, as it is not carrying but publishing whats going on.

Re:Set themselves up for this

[sangdrax]

At least here in Holland, website owners are responsible for the content of their website, even if the content originated from users. That this process is fully automated and unchecked does not relief them from that responsibility.

The 'common carrier defense' does not hold, as it is publishing, not carrying, what is going on. For the same reason, a newspaper cannot publish all ads regardless of content, defending themselves by saying they have a policy of not checking them.

Re:Set themselves up for this

[novakyu]

Would slashdot moderator be liable as accessory for seeing my comment and not calling the police?

I didn't know the site, and didn't RTFA either, but I would think it's a different kind of moderation. A /. moderator cannot delete your article.

Why spend days downloading movies

[Anita Coney]

When you can sign up for Netflix and get them delivered to your home for about 66 cents each!

Maybe I'm just lucky, but where I live I can get 14 movies delivered a week with Netflix's 8 movies at a time plan.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[garcia]

When you can sign up for Netflix and get them delivered to your home for about 66 cents each!

I have a couple reasons why:

1. I don't want to be on a monthly payment plan ($17.99 or something) where I have to get 7 movies in that month in order to be paying less than renting the movies at the video store.

2. Netflix's commercials annoy me. Standing in line at a store? Who the fuck does that? I have never waited to rent a movie and honestly, putting them into the mail takes longer for me than does going to the video store that's less than two miles away.

3. Downloading movies is free. 66 cents each still costs more than downloading them.

4. They come in a format that is all ready to be played on your computer (if you so desire) instead of having to wait to convert the 4GB to that format yourself.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Dr.Opveter]

Spend days downloading movies? Last time i checked you can practically stream a dvd scene release on decent cable connection. A 700mb xvid takes less than half an hour on a 5mbit line...

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[goneutt]

Ah, but if you have a DVD burner you can make a list of the movies you want copied, and go crazy copying. Then you just keep the account until your done with your list, and then maybe once a year you can go buy that one movie thats actually worth paying $16 for.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[RAMMS EIN]

Because here:

1. Netflix is not available
2. Downloading is legal, copying rented movies isn't
3. Bandwidth is cheaper than renting movies

FWIW, I rent my movies.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, dvdshrink them to divx or better yet to a dvd-r disc and send them back.

works great, better quality, and certianly saves time.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Anita Coney]

"I don't want to be on a monthly payment plan"

I have no problem paying a monthly payment plan as long as I'm getting movies that I want. 66 cents per movie is cheap whether it is paid monthly or not.

"Netflix's commercials annoy me."

All commercials annoy me. But I still buy products regardless.

"Downloading movies is free. 66 cents each still costs more than downloading them."

But you're downloading crap. I'm getting the actual movie and can rip it myself, with all the menus, audio tracks, and bonus material intact. You never know what you're getting when you've wasted the time to download.

"They come in a format that is all ready to be played on your computer (if you so desire) instead of having to wait to convert the 4GB to that format yourself."

You don't consider the time spent downloading it waiting?! It' takes me about ten minutes to rip the DVD to my hard drive. Can you really download an entire movie in ten minutes?!

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Anita Coney]

I used to do that, but hard drives are so cheap I just rip the whole thing. I use PowerDVD 6 to play them via the VIDEO_TS.ifo file from every computer in the house. One of which is a PVR connected to the living room's TV.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[garcia]

I have no problem paying a monthly payment plan as long as I'm getting movies that I want. 66 cents per movie is cheap whether it is paid monthly or not.

For an avid movie watcher (and I consider 6 movies a month avid) I can't see the need to pay a monthly fee EVERY MONTH when I might not be receiving enough movies for it to be worth it.

All commercials annoy me. But I still buy products regardless.

That's your problem. I refuse to support a company that I find annoying.

But you're downloading crap. I'm getting the actual movie and can rip it myself, with all the menus, audio tracks, and bonus material intact.

Anytime I have ripped a movie I have removed all the extras anyway. Usually because they take up too much room and I don't need them. Downloading a movie in one of the various formats usually has already done that for me.

You never know what you're getting when you've wasted the time to download.

I have never downloaded a movie (in the past two years+) that has been anything other than what it was labelled as. Might want to stick with the more "reputable" sources.

You don't consider the time spent downloading it waiting?! It' takes me about ten minutes to rip the DVD to my hard drive. Can you really download an entire movie in ten minutes?!

It takes an hour or two to download and a day or two to get in the mail. You don't consider that?

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[DarkEdgeX]

It takes an hour or two to download and a day or two to get in the mail. You don't consider that?

Just expanding on this a little bit: It takes 12-16 hours (for me anyways) to download a DVDR movie (4.7 GB). It costs $0.25-0.50 USD for a disc to burn it to (assuming I don't mount it directly, watch it on my PC, and forego a disc altogether). If I go the burning route it's cheaper than NetFlix and faster, and that's for DVD quality. If I wanted the full DVD9 release, that'd probably take 24 hours to download, but that's still likely faster than NetFlix getting it into my mailbox.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Anonymous Custard]

1. I don't want to be on a monthly payment plan ($17.99 or something) where I have to get 7 movies in that month in order to be paying less than renting the movies at the video store.

That's fine, use the video store like you said you do.

2. Netflix's commercials annoy me. Standing in line at a store? Who the fuck does that? I have never waited to rent a movie and honestly, putting them into the mail takes longer for me than does going to the video store that's less than two miles away.

Most people live closer to a mailbox (usually their own mailbox) than a video store.

3. Downloading movies is free. 66 cents each still costs more than downloading them.

You missed the key point... Netflix is legitimate and legal, but downloading (for free) almost never is. Plus depending on your internet connection speed and the server's download speed, it could take a lot of time or effort to download the movie. You could work an hour fixing someone's computer and charge $20 and rent 4x $5 movies, but I doubt you could find and download good quality versions of 4 movies in an hour. Plus if you're looking for unpopular movies, it would be very difficult to find them.

4. They come in a format that is all ready to be played on your computer (if you so desire) instead of having to wait to convert the 4GB to that format yourself.

Your computer can't play DVD's? Why not? If you have a DVD drive to rip them, then you have a DVD drive to play them. (and yes Linux machines can too).

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[blixel]

1. I don't want to be on a monthly payment plan ($17.99 or something) where I have to get 7 movies in that month in order to be paying less than renting the movies at the video store.

If you don't watch enough movies to make it worth while, then it's not for you.

2. Netflix's commercials annoy me.

What commercials?

...and honestly, putting them into the mail takes longer for me than does going to the video store that's less than two miles away.

How is driving 2 miles to the video store, getting out of your car, dropping the movies into the drop box (or taking them inside), then driving 2 miles back home faster than walking to the end of your drive way and putting a couple of envelopes in the mail while you are out there anyway picking up today's mail?

3. Downloading movies is free. 66 cents each still costs more than downloading them.

Duh. Of course it would be cheaper for me to walk into Walmart and steal a stack of DVD's than it would be to pay for them.

4. They come in a format that is all ready to be played on your computer (if you so desire) instead of having to wait to convert the 4GB to that format yourself. ...except the downloads are always garbage. "Ripped by [TMZ]" logo plastered on the bottom of the movie I'm trying to watch. Heads bobbing up and down in the aisle of the theater. The sounds quality is muffled and the screen is so dark you can't make out anything. And even if you are only talking about DVD rips, people compress the crap out of their video files to make the downloads faster; but using that much compression makes the video unwatchable.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Anita Coney]

"For an avid movie watcher (and I consider 6 movies a month avid) I can't see the need to pay a monthly fee EVERY MONTH when I might not be receiving enough movies for it to be worth it."

You don't have to watch them, you store them until you want to watch them.

"I refuse to support a company that I find annoying."

Since I find all commericals annoying, if I followed your rule, I wouldn't be able to buy anything.

"Usually because they take up too much room and I don't need them."

Hard drives are cheap, you can get 160 gb drives for about $80 or less. There really is no such thing as "too much room" any more.

"Might want to stick with the more "reputable" sources."

I didn't know there was such a thing as reputable pirates!

"It takes an hour or two to download and a day or two to get in the mail. You don't consider that?"

No I don't consider that waiting. Because when the movie is being sent I don't have to do anything. My bandwidth is not being tied up. That's like saying I'm "waiting" for tomorrow's lunch. Sure, I'll have lunch tomorrow, sure I'll want lunch tomorrow, and sure my lunch won't get here until tomorrow, but I'm certainly not waiting for it now.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[arasinen]

When you can sign up for Netflix and get them delivered to your home for about 66 cents each!

Where I live it takes at most an hour to download a popular movie, while Netflix does not deliver anything here (ie. Finland).

--A

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[3terrabyte]

But you're downloading crap

Not that I've ever downloaded a movie, but if you know what you're doing, and know where to look, what is available for downloading is already in a format that's not crap, in fact, is much better quality than I ever could rip/encode myself without a lot of practice.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[killmenow]

5. Because it's not available any other way.

90% of videos I've downloaded off of the Internet have been for shows that I cannot get in any other way. They are not presently licensed for distribution here...so nobody distributes them. And, they are not on video yet anyway. I cannot have the videos imported from any country because they are not for sale in any country. I am willing to accept that my actions may still be wrong in some ethical way; but, I'm hard pressed to see how I'm causing any financial harm.

6. Because it's still in theatres and you'd like to know if it's worth fifty bucks *before* you're out the fifty bucks. (This is about 1% of my Internet downloading.)

I have downloaded a few movies (8 to be precise) that were still showing in theatres to preview and decide whether or not they were decent movies (5 I went on to see in the theatre or rented when they came out on video) or to decide whether or not they were appropriate for my children to view (Shrek, for instance, which we decided was ok and took our children to see it in the theatre).

I would think movie studios and the MPAA would see a market here and realize they can release a low quality version of a movie for a couple dollars so people can preview the thing and decide for themselves whether the movie's worth seeing...I suppose they don't want to do this because they realize the majority of their movies ARE NOT WORTH SEEING.

7. Few people want their porn viewing to be on the record. <g>

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[toganet]

Fine, you don't like NetFlix -- why not use one of their competitor's offerings, like Blockbuster, Walmart, or (likely soon) Amazon.com?

Set aside the legal arguments, and there is no other real benefit to downloading -- it still costs you something, it is more work, and you gamble on quality.

And of course, it is stealing, but you probably don't care.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[h0mer]

Do you ever like *anything*? It seems like you'd have a problem with a donut because the center is missing.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[cdrudge]

7 movies to equal the $18 monthly fee? I'd like to live where you are at. My local Blockbuster charges about $5 for a new release for 2 days. A couple movies a month puts me over $18. Even with the 3-movie plan at netflix, you can easily get 12 a month (3 per week). If you do it right and get fast shipping, you can get over 20 a month.

You've NEVER stood in a line at a video store? I take it you've never been to a video store on a Friday or Saturday early evening then. And the point of the advertisement is that you have to go to the video store, find the movie, walk up to the front of the store and possibly wait for an open cashier. Yeah there may not be someone in front of you, but sometimes there is. It all takes time. The advantage with Netflix is that you don't have to do any of that. Just have a few movies in your queue and your set. Most people pick up their mail once a day so you don't have to make a special trip to get your movies. Most people also pass by a mailbox sometime during their day as well.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[mattdm]

Then you are a sad excuse for a human as you hate something but you have no balls to stand up against it.

It's even more sad when you can't understand the distinction between "find annoying" and hate.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Junior J. Junior III]

That's why I only eat Boston cream donuts. I refused to be ripped off by the sneaky donut manufacturers and their hidden cost cutting!

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[-kertrats-]

Now you take into consideration the time from ordering to delivery. I'm thinking downloading looks better now.

I'm on your side, just playing devil's advocate.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Pig Hogger]

The reason why doughnuts are toroidal is to diminish the maximum dough thickness to insure it gets properly cooked throughout.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[oliverthered]

"66 cents per movie is cheap", compared to free?

"All commercials annoy me. But I still buy products regardless.", don't maybe they will stop with the annoying commercials, hey don't buy advertised products == not T.V. great, at last the masses will get up and do something.

"But you're downloading crap."
They moderated the content.

You don't consider the time spent downloading it waiting".
I can download in the time it takes me to watch a movie, have a bath or pop to the shops, how long does it take for them to come in the post?

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Pig Hogger]

And, they are not on video yet anyway. I cannot have the videos imported from any country because they are not for sale in any country. I am willing to accept that my actions may still be wrong in some ethical way; but, I'm hard pressed to see how I'm causing any financial harm.

Exactly.

US satellite TV distributors are prohibited from selling their content in Canada. So the courts have ruled that whenever their signal is received in Canada, it is NOT theft nor piracy because one cannot LEGALLY pay to receive it.

Legal actions against canadian people who pirate US satellite signals always come from the US and most involve illegal acts from US private detectives that infringe on canadian sovereignty.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Junior J. Junior III]

Or, you can fill em up with tasty goo. Which do you think is the cost skimpingest measure?

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Horse Rotorvator JAD]

Why spend days downloading movies when you can sign up for Netflix and get them delivered to your home for about 66 cents each!

It only takes me a few hours to download a movie, not days. You must have a slow ass connection.

I have looked into Netflix but their website does not display properly in Firefox... OK. I just went to Netflix so that I could get the exact error message that Firefox gives but now it appears to be working fine. If yesterday was just a fluke and Netflix website continues to work in Firefox then I am going to give serious consideration to signing up.

All too often there are movies that I would like to see that I cannot find torrents for. Plus there is that whole illegal aspect to it. I think I might give Netflix a try.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Embedded2004]

"You don't consider the time spent downloading it waiting?! It' takes me about ten minutes to rip the DVD to my hard drive. Can you really download an entire movie in ten minutes?!"

Well, it only takes 10-20 seconds to find and start the download using bittorrent.

10-20 secs / movie, really is not that much work.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[swilver]

Plus depending on your internet connection speed and the server's download speed, it could take a lot of time or effort to download the movie.

What does it matter how long it takes? My ISP connection is 24/7. With that I can download close to 200-300 GB a month... that's around 200-300 movies.

I've had to cut back on downloading, simply because I donot have the storage capacity or even the time to watch what I download. Simply plan ahead.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Tim C]

what is available for downloading is already in a format that's not crap, in fact, is much better quality than I ever could rip/encode myself without a lot of practice.

With sufficient disk space you can rip DVDs to iso images and mount them using a virtual drive tool such as Daemon Tools. Absolutely no loss of quality at all, then watch them on your PC or burn to DVD (if you can find dual layer disks or they're small DVDs, etc).

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[WidescreenFreak]

1. I don't want to be on a monthly payment plan ($17.99 or something) where I have to get 7 movies in that month in order to be paying less than renting the movies at the video store.

But you're willing to pay a much higher, monthly fee for a broadband connection that gives you a relatively fast way of downloading movies. Of course, I suppose that you could be a masochist who finds some perverse pleasure in downloading hundreds of megs over a 56K modem using his PeoplePC dial-up.

putting them into the mail takes longer for me than does going to the video store that's less than two miles away.

Holy sh*t, dude! I don't know anyone who has a plot of land so large that it takes more than two miles to go to his mailbox! I'm glad that I don't have to pay your real estate taxes!

3. Downloading movies is free. 66 cents each still costs more than downloading them.

Really? So, you're getting your broadband connection for free as well?

They come in a format that is all ready to be played on your computer (if you so desire) instead of having to wait to convert the 4GB to that format yourself.

Yes, it's very, very inconvenient to have my PC crunch away at doing that overnight when I'm asleep and during the day when I'm at work.

I feel your pain. Netflix really is the devil to broadband-using movie watchers.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Anonymous Custard]

When you want a netflix movie, you go to their website, add it to the top of your list, and wait a day or two for it to get there. Work: 5 minutes. Wait: 2 days. When you download, you usually spend a lot of time just trying to find a site to download from.

Unless I'm wrong and just don't know of all the good places to get illegally distributed movies :-)

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[kardar]

I figured something out. Take a look at the price of DVD media (well, this is not exact) - but let's say a DVD-R costs 50 cents. Let's say a fairly active file sharer / movie downloader downloads 15 movies per month. That's 60 gigs or so, not that much compared to what some people are doing, and certainly not anywhere near what a broadband connection can accomplish.

15 movies * 12 months, let's say * 2 years = 360 movies. Of course dual-layer media is coming down in price, but let's just pretend someone's doing some shrinking. 360 movies, let's say $1 a piece (one copy for backup) - That's 360 dollars, two years, so divided by 24 is $15 dollars a month.

Of course, it's pretty easy to download more than 15 movies a month, but even at 15 movies a month, even if everything you get is via torrent or IRC or some other p2p and doesn't require any other provider fees or anything - $15 dollars a month (for blanks, essentially).

Now... how hard would it be to have an online "on-demand" repository of perhaps THOUSANDS of movies, where you could subscribe to it for $25 or $35 dollars a month? Put on the DRM. maybe a watermark so each download isn't distributed any further - but can you imagine a set-top box where you have access to thousands of movies "on demand", perhaps streaming to a temporary location on a hard drive or something... you could even qualify it by saying - $25 dollars a month, maximum of 20 movies per month, $2 each additional download, whatever... so who cares if you can't "burn" them, just watch them - if they're always there, and the subscription rate is less expensive not to mention less time consuming than the download-burn-try to find some way to organize them method - this is actually a better idea.

How many movies a month are people going to want to watch anyway?

You would get a much, much larger selection, you wouldn't have to buy blanks, you wouldn't have to sit there burning DVDs all day long, and it would be less expensive on top of everything else.

DVD blanks aren't cheap; downloading takes time; weeding through websites and torrents and p2p applications trying to find what you're looking for and having no quality assurance, no anti-virus assurance - all this stuff that these movie industry people are fighting in terms of file sharing is really just an expensive royal pain compared to what a reasonable monthly subscription fee would be to a service that would make massive quantities of DRM'd (perhaps non-burnable) content available "on demand" in one way or another.

It's way more expensive and time-consuming to "pirate" than it would be to subscribe to a half-way decent "on-demand" service, and it would literally take years of dedicated and disciplined file-sharing to build up a collection that would even come close to what this type of online "on-demand" service could provide.

Ok, it's all a pipedream, nothing like this is available - but if it were, it would be significantly less expensive and time-consuming to utilize such a service than it would be to "file-share" movies the way it is being done now.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Snaller]

When you can sign up for Netflix and get them delivered to your home for about 66 cents each!

But who wants movies? They are crap. You can't get tv shows and documentaries from Netflix can you?

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[AviLazar]

I agree. Services like netflix are great. You are getting high quality - and you know you are getting it. You are also not wasting a ton of bandwidth (better spent on gaming).

The only time I download shows is for TV shows that I just missed (i.e. my vcr tape gets full and it didn't record the latest episode of smalleville.)..I will d/l the show and watch it. Actually I (most of the time) get it in HD quality so its even better then tv (though smaller and not as good a sound quality)...

I personally think the networks should offer their shows for D/L (they can have you sign up and then target commercials at you...commercials that YOU want to view.) They are all freakin idiots though.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[AviLazar]

Hell, even if you use P2P servers - you still have to sift through all the crap, hope you get a decent connection and then HOPE that what you d/l'd was the real movie and not something else. I once tried d/lg the Paris Hilton video. It was titled as such. When it was done, it was some Kevin spacey movie (the one where he has a mid-life crises and almost screws mira sorvena)...I spent THREE days for nothing...and I spent at least a half hour sifting through crap.

Netflix is the way to go. Sides - i have a list so big (200 movies) that getting the movies is like a surprise :D

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"They come in a format that is all ready to be played on your computer (if you so desire)"

Last time I checked, my PC played DVDs. So does my laptop.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Anonymous Custard]

You mean American Beauty, and it's Mena Suvari, not Mira Sorveno. I always get their names confused too.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Jumperalex]

A lot of replies already here is mine:

I do both.

I subscribe to netflix to get all the movies I , and my GF, like to watch easy and convenient. Better than any video store because my mail box is right outside my door and there are NO LATE FEES. Blockbuster is changing their policy but it still sounds stupid and will cost me $$$. Hollywood is too far away and out of the way right now to be worth using. But no matter what a single late fee paid is not worth the cost in both real dollars and personal annoyance to justify anything but netflix now.

And a single late fee busts the argument about needing 7 movies to make netflix cheaper. And really, 7 movies a month ... if you aren't watching that many movies a month you are watching too much Reality TV

HOWEVER, to answer the why download when you can netflix: Because there are a lot of things I can't get from netflix that I simply want without waiting. Sounds selfish but when it is things that may never be put out on DVD in a reasonable time, or something that is currently playing in another country (like Battlestar Galactica or Coupling) I just download it and watch it.

But for sure I would never waste my time downloading something that I know will be in the netflix cue in a month or two. Hell movies are pretty much right out and I only download TV shows.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[swilver]

There are definitely some good sources. One thing to keep in mind is that you should only try downloading stuff that is out on DVD. Before that you are far more likely to get fakes or bad camera rips -- I just save myself the trouble, since there's plenty out there on DVD -- if desperate I just visit the cinema (and laugh at the warnings to not bring camera's...).

Downloading isn't hard either. Either use Google to find some torrents (I'm sure you'll find tons of sites) or use EMule. All of 5 minutes of work to get a few movies, and a few days of waiting (or just a few hours sometimes with BitTorrent).

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Anonymous Custard]

That's a good philosophy if you can ignore the fact that you don't have a right to distribute other people's copyrighted works in this manner.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[danila]

Some kids would reply saying that paying anything is not for them, only free is good enough. This a rational response from people with very small disposable income. When you are a kid, paying even 66 cents may be too much, especially when the Internet connection is free (paid by someone else or included with something).

However, for the majority of the users the benefits are different. I can download Earthsea from BitTorrent a few days after it's aired. There is no chance in hell that I can see it on TV here or get on DVD sooner than in 6 months. I can download an unreleased film, a 1950s film, a Korean film, anything that is not available in the nearest DVD store. Choice, speed - these are qualities of P2P that are just as important as the low cost. Another factor is freedom - I can get a Japanese uncensored version of Kill Bill, I can get the preferred edition of any other movie, in the language I want.

Of course, DVDs sometimes provide many of the benefits. That means that filesharers sometimes buy DVDs. I am not against paying for my entertainment, I am just saying that as long as P2P can provide something more, I don't want that freedom taken away from me. And don't forget the fact that a very significant fraction of material on P2P is not available to a vast majority of potential viewers/readers/listeners - it's the only truly global content-delivery mechanism.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[cbr2702]

(and yes Linux machines can too)

The link you give says nothing of the sort. All the linked programs require (the illegal) libcss to play DVDs that are protected with CSS. That means with Linux even if you own the DVD and the DVD player, you still cannot watch the DVD legally.

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Anonymous Custard]

Good point! Forgot that detail... but wasn't there a closed source linux dvd player made available in recent months? With a specific distribution or something?

Re:Why spend days downloading movies

[Anonymous Custard]

It's from Lindows/Linspire - but it requires Linspire 4.5 or higher: http://www.linspire.com/lindows_products_details.p hp?id=11804

Ars3 Hum0r

[webword]

"The Motion Picture Ass. of America (MPAA) today announced (PDF) that it is pursuing civil actions against hundreds of server operators of BitTorrent, eDonkey and DirectConnect P2P file-swapping networks, in its war on internet movie piracy."

Emphasis mine but "Ass." is theirs.

Re:Ars3 Hum0r

[Apatharch]

They did exactly the same thing in this related story linked to from /. the other day. Something tells me The Register aren't exactly the MPAA's biggest fans....

WinMX warnings

[kahei]

On WinMX (which isn't as good as it used to be, which is why I dare mention it on /.), recently I have started to get automatic messages sent to me (in Japanese) saying something like:

"The Recording Industry Association of Japan has noticed that you are sharing files whose names match artists or recordings owned by our members. You are reminded that such..." and so on and so on.

I got a couple of these in one day -- haven't run WinMX recently though so I don't know if they are still happening. It would be interesting to try sharing only files with ASCII names and see if that makes a difference.

Re:What a haul...

[mordors9]

Yeah, we are back to the assumption that Corporate America likes to make that every single song, movie or piece of software would have been legally purchased if they had not been illegally downloaded. Obviously that is false, but it makes the "losses sufferred" sound really impressive.

How do we Fix this P2P problem?

[lcsjk]

This problem will continue, and we do not want to have any P2P curtailed because large companies and organizations have political clout. I do not think it will ever be stopped by lawsuits, and even though the MPAA and others may be over-reacting, there is still a perception that digital media sharing circumvents the legal selling of products. Is there a way to slow or stop the sharing of music and video that would appease the those companies and yet not bring down the P2P system?

Re:How do we Fix this P2P problem?

[Maljin Jolt]

Is there a way to slow or stop the sharing of music and video that would appease the those companies and yet not bring down the P2P system?

No, it is not. The behavioral patterns of media sharing underground very resemble the behavioral pattern of political dissent in former deep communist totalitarian states. This includes following patterns:

- Basically, the idea of voluntarily serving to others is the motive behind movement. On the contrary, establishment has modus operandi of exploiting others.

- Underground has not militant tendencies. No guns, no bombs, no riots, no killings.

- No matter how many people are jailed, information stil continues to flow. Self motivation of activists is increasing under pressure.

- Activists are better in using a new technology paradigm more creatively than establishment (( Under late communism, it were modems and dot matrix printers. Today, it's P2P. Tomorrow, it will be the encryption and WPAN. )) This gives them tactical superiority against information denial.

- Excercising state power against children and teenagers rather creates tension in public masses, slowly building up resistance in middle class. The reason is, spreading information is hardly publicly percieved as a crime in society, because it does no real harm to individuals.

- Further accumulation of pressure will eventually lead to degradation of establishment's influence to whole society. Establishment increases propaganda and oppression proportionally to this loss.

- This escalation countinues until establishment is clearly percepted as inadequate by whole society. Propaganda has no more effect on public no matter of the volume.

- Without power to control, establishment quickly loses economic influence, is melted and underground becomes a new establishment.

Re:How do we Fix this P2P problem?

[InvalidError]

There is a way to slow it down, it is known as DRM. One problem with DRM is that it is highly unpopular since it breaks backward-compatibility, imposes further barriers to entry for new player device designers and can be extremely restrictive/annoying.

If the MPAA/RIAA could lock down a DVD/CD to one specific set of eyes/ears, they probably would try their best (worst) to do exactly that.

Me, I use downloads to sample stuff I never had any intention to buy in the first place. Often, this results in "accidental" sales when my friends see something they would have never seen or even heard about otherwise.

As far as I am concerned, it seems the "free publicity" argument makes more sense than the studios' hypothetically lost sales panic. After all, underexposure leads to missed sales as well.

Re:How do we Fix this P2P problem?

[killbill!]

That's actually pretty easy - but for one thing: above everything else, media corporations want to retain CONTROL.
Control, as in being able to screw both artists and consumers.

Because of the fear to lose control, the **AA have been pushing for unidirectional (server>client) "solutions" to P2P file sharing. This is a waste of resources. P2P has got to exist, because it is the most efficient distribution system (remember the original raison d'etre of BitTorrent).
This is also preventing legal offerings from entering the market. After all, if legal online music shops are barely turning a profit at $10 an album, how do you expect a legal movie shop to be profitable at twice the price for 10 times the amount of data?

But you have to dig out why copyright infringement over the Internet continues, despite the DRM, despite legal threats. An often-overlooked fact is that the p2p problem is not only about artists, the **AA and the freeloading public: it is also about the ISPs.

ISPs want consumers to upgrade to their fastest (and most expensive) offerings. Indeed, the killer app of broadband is unlimited free music, movies and TV shows. Without those, we might as well stick to 256k ISDN/cable/DSL (or even dialup).
ISPs are the first beneficiaries of widespread copyright infringement, and the most vocal to push the mainstream public to do it. Just a couple months ago, T-Online in Germany was running a massive campaign promising unlimited entertainment to your home.
Of course, this "unlimited entertainment" is 95% pirate, and Deutsche Telekom knows it. But they don't give a damn about the **AA. To telcos and ISPs, piracy is all about redirecting revenue that used to be spent on music and movies towards them.

A second often-overlooked fact is that not all consumers/freeloaders are equal. There are actually two kinds of consumers: geeks with broadband, and everyone else. Geeks don't care about the **AA. The more the **AA tighten their grip, the more geeks slip through their fingers, as they move onto more secure networks. DRM? It will be cracked. Huge amounts of data to transfer? University networks are blazing fast.

As for the other consumers, they are indeed a target. They don't let their computers run 24/7. This is especially an issue since broadband connections are typically highly asymetrical, which conflicts with the first rule of p2p: average download speed == average upload speed. In other words, if your upload speed is only a fourth of your download speed, you have to upload four times longer than you do download. If you aren't used to letting run your computer 24/7, you're getting less value out of p2p file sharing.
And if you're not getting as much value out of illegal offerings, then you are a target for legal offerings.

The **AA know they can't win the DRM battle against geeks. But what matters is whether they can keep milking the average consumer. The purpose of DRM is not to make it impossible to get free content, but to make it inconvenient enough to Joe Sixpack.
Which is all fine and dandy, but the risk is that the very second an obscure hacker cracks a DRM scheme, geeks will leak the fresh de-DRMed works to mainstream illegal networks.

To fix the p2p problem as you called it, the only way is to make "geeks with broadband" PROFIT from p2p (instead of suing them)!
You can't win if potential pirates and uploading nodes are fighting you; however if you can make it more profitable for them to fight for you instead of fighting against you, then you'll win.

So my proposal is following: a p2p client metering uploads and downloads. When you download a movie, you'll pay the MPAA's share, and the uploaders' share. Once you have completed the download, you start collecting credits as an uploader, hence you're making your money back.

Consequences:
- potential infringers ("geeks with broadband") will remain on the legal network, and stay away from illegal networks. Indeed, every person that illegally downloads a work stored on th

Re:How do we Fix this P2P problem?

[Xiaran]

The other problem with DRM is that it never works. Never ever ever. The software industry has been thru all this already! It didnt work for em... everything from dongles to weird ass disk formats. If some DRM standard come about and everyone standards all computers and consumer electronic gear on it, Ill give it about two weeks before some wacky obsessed geek has broken it and submitted a mod to a public forum for my shiney new DRMed DVD player. There are people in the world obsessed with cracking things like this, not from malice, but because they enjoy it so much.

you cant stop it all

[broyles]

I think the RIAA and the music industry should embrace P2P due to the fact that they can not stop it all, I don't belive in downloading music/films I buy them , but people need to adapt and get with the times. I belive the best thing for the music industry to do is release some songs for free and using a bittorrent to allow people to download them... Just my thoughts!

Re:you cant stop it all

[SamuelGoldstein]

hm... well, just like the government should embrace illegal substances. ie: crack, marajuanna, opium, lsd, ect...

Re:you cant stop it all

[Apatharch]

Nice idea; what needs to happen is for more people to make legal use of P2P networks, thereby increasing the profile of such systems as legitimate tools. That way they would be a far less easy target for litigation and legalistic strongarming.

Re:you cant stop it all

[IRNI]

yes because the drug war is a waste of money and time. they will never stop illegal drugs. people will do what they want. it isn't the government's place to tell a person what they can do with their body.

Re:you cant stop it all

[jedidiah]

Certainly. Otherwise we end up with masterpieces like RICO.

Anytime a significant portion of the population is criminalized by a particular law, draconian enforcement of that law will always end badly for the population at large.

Re:you cant stop it all

[Apatharch]

I do actually understand the difference between a network and a protocol; and sure, IP owners are quite justified in taking legal measures against anyone actively distributing their property without consent. My point was that by increasing the legitimate use of P2P protocols such as Bittorrent, it becomes harder for entities such as the MPAA and RIAA to attack the developers of P2P systems just because they could potentially be used for copyright infringement. That particular activity, IMO, is just an abuse of the legal system.

Re:you cant stop it all

[shark72]

"I think the RIAA and the music industry should embrace P2P due to the fact that they can not stop it all, I don't belive in downloading music/films I buy them , but people need to adapt and get with the times. I belive the best thing for the music industry to do is release some songs for free and using a bittorrent to allow people to download them... Just my thoughts!"

I agree. The record companies are already starting to do this.

The record companies' practice of releasing free tracks on the iTunes Music Store also appears to be successful. They'll keep doing it if it results in more sales. "Give away your product for free" only works as a business model if there's a potential revenue stream.

From the article...

[WoodenRobot]

The Motion Picture Ass. of America (MPAA) today announced

"Ass. of America"? Hmmm. I doubt that was unintentional...

Re:From the article...

[3terrabyte]

I'm sure it was. I know that the Register ALWAYS spells it that way on purpose :)

Insert Comment...

[BJZQ8]

Insert Comment about star systems slipping through your fingers...

TV Torrents

[superid]

The gathering storm against bittorrent users has already started to worry me. I have been using suprnova to find torrents of TV shows only, no movies. I'm essentially time shifting content that I could almost as easily have "tivo"-ed myself.

A recent example is that a friend of mine missed last week's episode of her favorite show, ER. I got a torrent the next day and burned her a DVD.

I wish that type of usage was considered "fair use" but it's not.

Re:TV Torrents

[garcia]

A recent example is that a friend of mine missed last week's episode of her favorite show, ER. I got a torrent the next day and burned her a DVD.

I haven't been downloading much lately just because I have DirecTV and Tivo now but I downloaded this week's Simpsons' and Arrested Development episodes because they were both preempted by Survivor's off-night finale bullshit.

Fox should be fucking thrilled that I am watching their shows and would go so far as to download the episodes to keep current.

I really don't see the difference between me Tivoing it and downloading it. I wouldn't have seen the commercials w/the 30s skip feature anyway nor would I have watched the commercials even if I didn't use Tivo.

Re:TV Torrents

[scooby-doo]

They can be even more of a pain if you download premium channel (HBO, Showtime) TV shows. I had a friend get a notice for downloading Sopranos and Dead Like Me from their respective production houses to his ISP. Those are channels he pays for but he missed some episodes of each.

Re:TV Torrents

[bongoras]

A recent example is that a friend of mine missed last week's episode of her favorite show, ER. I got a torrent the next day and burned her a DVD.

I bet she still won't sleep with you, though.. :-)

Re:TV Torrents

[djdavetrouble]

Absolutely. The recording industry needs to get off of their collective ass. While they have wasted a decade hemming and hawing about how to control, encrypt and restrict an entire ad hoc global network has arisen to encode and distribute content via digital means. We can never watch TV shows when they are on anymore. We download arrested development, and when the DVD came out we bought that. MPAA and RIAA need to wake up and kick start digital distribution, or it will just be more of the same for years to come. The people want it and have done it themselves despite the illegalities. You can't encrypt, you can't restrict, your business model is in shambles, now is the time to rebuild.

Re:TV Torrents

[jackmama]

I haven't been downloading much lately just because I have DirecTV and Tivo now but I downloaded this week's Simpsons' and Arrested Development episodes because they were both preempted by Survivor's off-night finale bullshit.

So, since Survivor is on CBS and the shows you missed are on Fox, you must have Survivor ranked higher on your Tivo than Simpsons and Arrested Development? If so, you got what you deserved.

Re:TV Torrents

[superid]

nope, cuz I'm spoken for.

However, she is a single geek with a masters degree who plays volleyball and who might be interested in dating a like minded, athletic, non-smoking, sane, intelligent person in the new england area.

email me at gary dot huntress at gmail for details

Re:TV Torrents

[j-turkey]

Fox should be fucking thrilled that I am watching their shows and would go so far as to download the episodes to keep current.

Interesting logic...but it I'm not sure that I agree that it works quite like that. Fox doesn't make shows just so you'll like them and keep current with them. Rupert Murdoch could give two shits about whether Garcia who posts on /. keeps current with their content. They make shows so you will watch the ads that they air...this way, they make money. This is the basis of their revenue stream. When you download their shows, they don't get that revenue. Now, they can accept this and move on to other forms of revenue, such as ads inline with their shows and further product placement -- but I'd rather not see that.

Look, I'm not anti-download, and I'm not anti-PVR...but it's important that we not bullshit ourselves about this stuff. Pre-empting a show is their perogative. It's their content and they can legally do whatever they want with it. They can give it to everyone in Illinois, and withhold it from everyone elsewhere for no particular reason...and you have absolutely no right to do anything about it other than go to Illinois and watch there or wait until the DVD comes out. Downloaded shows are somewhat problematic, since they typically have all of the ads stripped from them, and again, the ads are the only source of revenue for the show.

If you're going to pirate their content...fine -- recgonize it and move on. But all I'm saying is that it doesn't do your intellect any justice by acting like you're doing Fox a favor when you download pirated copies of their content.

Re:TV Torrents

[superid]

with her blessing, I don't even get a finders fee :)

We work together with about 3000 engineers/scientist. Everyone in her age range (lets say over 35) is either married or divorced and *very* creepy.

The problem is that she is so athletic and active that she hangs around with a much younger crowd that realistically is not right for a long term relationship. I'll bet not one guy in 10 her age can keep up with her.

Yes, "pimping her out" on /. is pretty non-traditional but where better to find a matching geek!

Re:TV Torrents

[Zemrec]

I was thinking that if the TV industry made their shows downloadable, including commercials, lots of people would download. If they in addition gave you the option to watch ads or not watch ads, that'd be even greater. Perhaps you could opt-out to not watch ads but had to pay a modest fee per show instead. Or they let you FF through ads, and they kept track of when/what/who did that, and what ads you did watch...then they'd have more marketing information to give their advertisers. XXX group of people like these ads, YYY group doesn't, but YYY group likes these other ads but not XXX, etc.

Re:TV Torrents

[killmenow]

...where better to find a matching geek!

technocrat?

Re:TV Torrents

[DunbarTheInept]

If those pirated copies are full scans that contain the ads, then what's the difference between taping them off the air (legal) versus off the internet (not legal)? If the ads pay for the content, then it does not matter what means are used to send them to you.

The entire model of the media industry is broken anyway. Neilson Ratings are not accurate and people don't pay attention to the commercials anyway even during live broadcasts. They switch channels or hit the mute or leave the room. The whole system is based on getting advertisers to believe the lie that their ads are reaching our eyeballs. At some point it's going to have to break and be replaced with something else. I'm just afraid that in the process, a lot of good technology is going to be killed by legal action.

Re:TV Torrents

[quakeroatz]

This is the basis of their revenue stream. When you download their shows, they don't get that revenue.

No their revenue stream is much more complex and interdependent than this. What about merchadising? Selling Boxed sets of entire seasons?

doesn't do your intellect any justice by acting like you're doing Fox a favor when you download pirated copies of their content.
Wouldn't it be a huge mindf@#ck if it actually DOES do them a favour! IMO, I think it does.

Re:TV Torrents

[j-turkey]

If those pirated copies are full scans that contain the ads, then what's the difference between taping them off the air (legal) versus off the internet (not legal)?

I wouldn't see an ethical problem with leaving the ads in...but it rarely ever happens, and the only times I've seen it were in cases where the person who encoded the original show were too lazy (or inept) to cut the ads out. However, there's a big difference between recording a broadcast for personal use and redistributing someone else's content. After all, regardless of whether or not hte ads were included, the network still owns distribution rights to that show. They paid a handsome sum for it, and they feel that they should retain those rights. I may not respect it in my downloading, but I understand where they're coming from. Their actions may not be reasonable, but they do come from what seems like pretty reasonable logic.

As far as the Nielson ratings being a bunch of BS -- I'll give that to you...but accurate data isn't necessarily important to the marketplace. It's all about perceived value. When people thought that banner ads were effective, they were gold. When people stopped believing in them, they weren't worth crap, and a new advertising model had to be developed for ad-revenue based Internet. Who cares if the Nielson ratings actually have statistical significance. Advertisers generally believe it, and ad rates are based on them. When they cease to believe it, I'm sure that something else will take its place.

Re:TV Torrents

[DunbarTheInept]

Who cares if the Nielson ratings actually have statistical significance.

They drive which shows stay and which ones get cancelled. If a show you like is cancelled based on this incorrect data, that's enough reason to care.

Re:TV Torrents

[pkarlos_76]

I'm sure if commercials were left intact the companies might be a little more hesitant in trying to restrict downloads. Maybe they'll enjoy a little bit of a free advertising or be able to charge the advertisers more...hey greater audience you pay more . :P And leave it up to us to curtail the commercials on our own. :)

Re:TV Torrents

[j-turkey]

They drive which shows stay and which ones get cancelled. If a show you like is cancelled based on this incorrect data, that's enough reason to care.

So what? How is that relevant to this discussion? He was making a point that Nielson ratings are irrelevant for ad revenue purposes and using it to justify pirating copyrighted content. That has absolutely nothing to do with what you just said.

Re:TV Torrents

[DunbarTheInept]

He was making a point that Nielson ratings are irrelevant for ad revenue purposes

1. A question was asked, and I answered it.
2. Neilson ratings are directly relevant for ad revenue. They are the primary deciding factor in how expensive it is to buy airtime for an advertisement.

Re:TV Torrents

[mpe]

The recording industry needs to get off of their collective ass. While they have wasted a decade hemming and hawing about how to control, encrypt and restrict an entire ad hoc global network has arisen to encode and distribute content via digital means.

Part of the issue is that they still want to use regionalised business models in what is effectivly a global market place. Even though the corporations involved are very much global in their operations.

We download arrested development, and when the DVD came out we bought that.

Though depending where you might happen to be on the planet the time you might have to wait for the DVD to come out can vary between "months" and "years"...

MPAA and RIAA need to wake up and kick start digital distribution, or it will just be more of the same for years to come.

The real issue here isn't "digital", it's "global". People are not happy waiting days, let alone months/years, to be able to watch a movie or TV show which people elsewhere have already seen. Especially where there are global forums for discussing just about everything.
It's not as if it would be that difficult to create a global TV network where ads are inserted on a local basis.

Re:TV Torrents

[mpe]

If those pirated copies are full scans that contain the ads, then what's the difference between taping them off the air (legal) versus off the internet (not legal)? If the ads pay for the content, then it does not matter what means are used to send them to you.

An ad for a product or service only available from a great distance away (and possibly only in exchange for foreign currency) isn't very useful to anyone.

Re:TV Torrents

[mpe]

I wouldn't see an ethical problem with leaving the ads in...but it rarely ever happens, and the only times I've seen it were in cases where the person who encoded the original show were too lazy (or inept) to cut the ads out.

The reason for cutting the ads is that they can increase the size of the resulting file by around a third. Also they are likely to be of little interest to anyone doing the downloading. After removing promotion of other programmes on the same (or related) channels; time specific advertising and geographic specific advertising (which includes ads mentioning prices) all that would be left is advertisments of the "brand awareness" type for globally sold products.

Re:TV Torrents

[mpe]

They drive which shows stay and which ones get cancelled. If a show you like is cancelled based on this incorrect data, that's enough reason to care.

A fundermental problem is that a lot of TV programming ends up being "test marketed" in one market. That of the US. Even though US broadcasting is out of step with the rest of the planet.

Re:TV Torrents

[j-turkey]

The reason for cutting the ads is that they can increase the size of the resulting file by around a third. Also they are likely to be of little interest to anyone doing the downloading. After removing promotion of other programmes on the same (or related) channels; time specific advertising and geographic specific advertising (which includes ads mentioning prices) all that would be left is advertisments of the "brand awareness" type for globally sold products.

I'm aware of the practical reasons (size, and nobody wants to watch ads)...even so, the network owns the content, and making ads relevant is their problem (since they are the sole owners of the distribution rights). They license some of those rights out to local affiliates for network and cable. Those affiliates decide how to insert geographically relevant ads. This is another reason why TV torrents are illegal. It's their content, and they can do what they want with it. If you don't like it, it's your right not to watch it.

Re:TV Torrents

[AviLazar]

Heh, If it was two years ago I would have hooked her up with my good buddy (43 now) who is loaded, fun and plays in a mens hockey league (whoops up on anyone half his age)...Loves to travel, go adventuring (white water), etc...

OTOH she could come to Philly to go out with me :) (28)

Re:TV Torrents

[ScooterBill]

Absolutely. I've only used bittorrent to get old reruns of TV shows that I can't find on my satellite box. What's wrong with this? When Apple started making it easy to get music online, I signed up and bought an iPod. When the MPAA makes it possible to get the program you want, when you want it, then they'll have far less piracy worries. It's all about supply and demand IMHO.

Re:TV Torrents

[Kanasta]

ur lucky TV isnt illegal yet.

BREIN

[thrill12]

BREIN (Dutch for BRAIN) is the little sister of the MPAA. They kinda follow their actions and immitate them as closely as possible, I guess. They even have a commercial in the Dutch cinema's, bothering people that pay for good movies with blah blah about piracy.

Next time I bring my camera with me, I will film the commercial :)

Re:BREIN

[Pig Hogger]

BREIN (Dutch for BRAIN) is the little sister of the MPAA. They kinda follow their actions and immitate them as closely as possible, I guess. They even have a commercial in the Dutch cinema's, bothering people that pay for good movies with blah blah about piracy.

Same shit in Canada; they show that blurb where a low-level movie worker talks about all those great movies he worked on, then rants about being pissed-off when he sees those movies being pirated, and says that he doesn't want to have his pay lowered.

That's bullshit because when he made a movie, he got paid anyway whether it was a blockbuster or a dud. But of course, the same commercial with a movie mogul would not fligh high...

Which Site?

[Hettch]

Does anybody know which site this was? I'm guessing suprnova, but I couldn't see anything in the article.

Re:Which Site?

[PhoenixFlare]

I'm guessing suprnova, but I couldn't see anything in the article.

Considering the "Police say the site had 10,000 users, all Finnish" quote in the article, and the fact that Suprnova is still up fine, i'm guessing not.

Re:Which Site?

[Mz6]

"Considering the "Police say the site had 10,000 users, all Finnish" quote in the article, and the fact that Suprnova is still up fine, i'm guessing not."

You're right... Suprnova has way more than 10,000 users.

Re:Which Site?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was finreactor.com

Re:Which Site?

[wheany]

Finreactor.com.

The Wild West

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people have said that the ongoing copyright crackdown represents the end of the sort of "Wild West" nature that the internet had at first.

I disagree.

This represents the wild west nature finally becoming complete.

Previously the internet was a place of lawlessness.

Now it's still a place of lawlessness, but on top of this we have little tyrannies, where those rare people with lawyers can make anything they want happen just by issuing threats and governments can take things out at will without having to worry about pesky things like jurisdiction, right or courts. Like the wild west, where on top of the chaos it was overlaid that if whatever self-appointed lawman felt like it you would get hanged or shot for no reason at all.

Perhaps this comes down to how you define the word "laws"; after all, there have been many times throughout justice where "law" meant nothing but the imposed will on a subjugated populace of a bunch of armed thugs. But I think laws imply justice. I see none of this coming to the internet, only the raw exercise of naked power.

Re:The Wild West

[duffbeer703]

The "Wild West" was untimately transformed into dysfunctional sprawl development & government subsidized desert farming operations.

Sounds like a great future for the internet.

Re:The Wild West

[paranode]

...where those rare people with lawyers can make anything they want happen just by issuing threats and governments can take things out at will without having to worry about pesky things like jurisdiction, right or courts.

Jurisdiction - well established. Right - You do not have the right to distribute someone else's copyrighted works without permission. Courts - wake up, that's exactly what they're doing. Or did you mean some other court where those rare lawyers cannot go?

Re:The Wild West

[3terrabyte]

Anyone with any age on them will remember what it was like typing away on a green text screen, chatting with someone from Hong Kong for the first time.

The "Last frontier" is just about over. This Wild West as you put it is now becoming the new medium for corporations. Again.

The last nail will be when censorship laws (to protect the children) and Palladium authenication becomes law. Or even the bit-tax. It won't take long until doing anythign worthwhile online will cost through the nose, and the content bullies finally push away their 'competition'. Maybe it'll take a $1000 license to own a web site, much like trying to do anything with radio waves.

Re:The Wild West

[EinarH]

Remember that the companies behind the MPAA/RIAA already rely on the government for enforcing (most) of the copyright. So if they "take over the internet", as in controling susbstanitial parts of law, policy, economy and development, and at the same tiime manage to get the government to step up with a the "War on P2P", the circle will be complete.

Re:The Wild West

[j-turkey]

The "Last frontier" is just about over. This Wild West as you put it is now becoming the new medium for corporations. Again.

You're sounding a little whiney here. New markets were created out of the Internet, and the perceptions of its capabilities...and in the United States, where the Internet was largely developed, we're a free-market economy. Did you expect that new businesses wouldn't grow out of this? Did you expect that existing businesses wouldn't try to latch onto this? What would you prefer? Did you expect that the government would develop this? Let me let you in on a little secret. Governments are generally worse than corporations. Don't forget that a vast majority of the Internet backbones in the US were financed and developed with private funds...and owned by corporations. The high speed internet that you get at your house was also developed, rolled out, and owned by corporations. They likely would not have developed without corporations (ie: we need to roll out high speed internet but can't afford to roll out new infrastructure to everyone's house...what lines do we own and how can we cheaply leverage them to provide high speed connectivity?)

Personally, I like being able to order movies from Netflix and crap from Amazon. I also like being to track my packages at FedEx. I have no problems with businesses owning this stuff.

I can't agree with the grandparent who called this the "last" frontier either -- to call this the last frontier would imply that we've seen everything that there is to see and there's nothing new on the horizon for humans. I also don't think that it's over. We have a long way to go to develop this thing into whatever we want it to be.

At the risk of sounding like Howard Dean, you have the power here. If you understand the technology, make it work for you. If you have a good idea, put it to work -- there's plenty to do. If you think that all of the ideas are gone, and that it's the evil corporations fault...well, it's not their fault -- it's just your lack of imagination.

Re:The Wild West

[Nexx]

If you have a good idea, put it to work -- there's plenty to do. If you think that all of the ideas are gone, and that it's the evil corporations fault...well, it's not their fault -- it's just your lack of imagination.

Bravo. I could not have said it better myself.

My only resentment? All the low-hanging fruits seem to be gone :)

Re:The Wild West

[mutewinter]

Why now? How about when they shut down Napster? How about domain name lawsuits over generics words like madonna? How about scientologists sucessfully going after people posting on usenet? This is hardly anything new.

Re:The Wild West

[mutewinter]

You go on and on about how the government is the problem not the free market. Notice his references to censorship, "Palladium authenication becomes law", and a bit tax?

Some people see tons of rules and regulations as a way to "fight" the big corporations. In reality it makes it much harder for the little guys to jump through the loopholes with their smaller pockets. The internet changed all of that. You don't need any licence to start a website, register a domain, send an e-mail, etc.

Re:The Wild West

[j-turkey]

You go on and on about how the government is the problem not the free market. Notice his references to censorship, "Palladium authenication becomes law", and a bit tax?

Yah, I didn't miss that. It was a solid point. I didn't say that our system is not without problems...but I honestly felt like he was just whining and not trying to understand how things work.

Re:The Wild West

[Graemee]

Just don't be the Indians. That's native Americans not the outsourcers.

Re:The Wild West

[mpe]

Some people see tons of rules and regulations as a way to "fight" the big corporations. In reality it makes it much harder for the little guys to jump through the loopholes with their smaller pockets.

It's not unknown for rules and regulations to be deliberatly intended to stifle potential competition.

Re:The Wild West

[poofyhairguy82]

but I honestly felt like he was just whining and not trying to understand how things work.

hmmm...the parent post stated that soon the "darknet" will cease to exist because large corporations and government will work together to end it. That sounds like the most accurate possible future situation. I mean, corporations hate losing control of distribution channels, and governments (well, mine in the U.S.) hates it when it cannot project its power into somepart of daily life (like boring cable). It almost cannot be doubted that in the future bought and paid for laws will change the nature of computer hardware and the future internet will be as "wild west" as any other corporate distribution network. That situation sucks. Even though I will agree with you, instead of whinning the poster should do something about it: download everything now before the sheriffs come!

Re:The Wild West

[iminplaya]

You're sounding a little whiney here.

No, he's not. Corporations and gov't are doing what they can to prevent average users from uploading...anything. Soon you just might need a license to upload. We must not permit this to happen. If it does, then it will be yet another law that will bring about more rubber stamped warrants and arrests. Then the net will just be more TV. The net wasn't created just to create new markets. It was meant to be a robust, reliable, computer networking system. The fact that businesses can exploit this is perfectly ok, but they must not be allowed to control it. The net was meant to be P2P. This is why we need real wireless. The ISP's don't want you uploading either. We should make sure that the internet remains out of control by these people. As long as we need a wire, that will not be possible. I don't want the net to be limited to tracking my FedEx packages or ordering out. I can do that with a phone. In fact the net can be a real pain to do those things. But the pictures are pretty. Aren't they?

...we're a free-market economy.

Uh, what? Say again? I hope you don't really believe that. You sound like you have something to sell.

If you have a good idea, put it to work

That won't matter if it's outlawed.

...you have the power here.

On that I agree, but we are letting it slip away. That will be a tragedy. If that happens, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Re:The Wild West

[mutewinter]

Corporations hate losing control, but in a free society and a free market they do. Once IBM was the big guy, Microsoft got rid of them. Now we all have Microsoft -- but I don't they will be king of the hill much longer. The next might be Google.

Fortunately there are corporations that are on "our" side. I can recall a certain Verizon fighting the hand of God subpoenas the RIAA was issuing. And there are plenty of corporations making CD burners, DVD burners, portable MP3 players, etc. etc. Does anyone believe the people buying 100 packs of CD-Rs at Office Max to back up files that they created? How about an 80gb MP3 player? I don't know too many people who have bought $10,000 worth of songs off iTunes.

There are plenty of reasons to hate corporations but I think that lumping them into one big catagory is a big mistake.

That being said I do believe copyright is important -- however I also believe there is a need for copyright reform.

Waste of time

[new-black-hand]

MPAA did not win a single court case in 2004. Groskter was found to be legal, and there are a number of previous rulings that show that providing technology that enables people to share files does not constitute breach of copyright! The RIAA and ARIA (Australian equiv.) are seeing this now in their Kazaa case currently underway in Australia - and if a case can not be proven against Kazaa (which still has some elements of centralisation that could provide Kazaa with a way to 'filter' or 'block' copyright material) then the chances of being able to find that a simple website with links to trackers (which themselves are not a copyright infringement either - just a 'pointer') are guilty of copyright violation are almost zero.

Time for the record labels and movie studios to wake up to themselves - they are alienating a large part of their support base. All the expenses of lobbying various governments around the world, and the associated legal fees around every case is being paid for, and funded by consumers who purchase their records!

They should listen to the overpaid Robbie Williams, who said something along the lines of "I dont care, I am rich, if yo uwant my music, just download it!" (He said this in 2002 - I can't find an online source).

Re:Waste of time

[Macka]

Time for the record labels and movie studios to wake up to themselves - they are alienating a large part of their support base.

Are they really? I mean, you'd expect it right ... but is this a truism, or just modern legend and wishful thinking on your part? Does anyone have any stats to back up this claim?

I've seen a lot of people state when asked, that if they download tracks and like them then they go and buy the Album. That the justification for free downloads is try-and-buy. Do the actions of the MPAA stop people from following through with their purchase?

I expect that sales of singles are on the wane, but that can be attributed to a combination of legal online sales, and the flood of crappy teen pop the industry is churning out these days.

Personally I think that the number of customers who are aware enough to be put off by these kinds of industry antics are so small they're little more than a rounding error. Certainly no where near enough to dissuade the MPAA from continuing. Your average street punter doesn't know what's going on, and frankly doesn't care. Sad .. but that's life.

Re:Waste of time

[new-black-hand]

"Does anyone have any stats to back up this claim?"

I dont need stats, because I download music/movies, I purchase music/movies and despite being a customer of the MPAA/RIAA for a very long time I have not seen or heard of any plan from the two cartels that will unlock consumers from the existing shackles that they have imposed and have thrived on over the past decades.

I've seen a lot of people state when asked, that if they download tracks and like them then they go and buy the Album. That the justification for free downloads is try-and-buy.
By your logic, radio play makes no contribution to record sales either. Action from the MPAA would turn people off sending them more money to fund their campaigns. Its called boycotting.

Your average street punter doesn't know what's going on, and frankly doesn't care.

I dont want to speak on behalf of the 'average street punter' (who are these people anyway) but P2P, the MPAA/RIAA etc. are in the media enough for most Internet using people to have a vague awareness of what is going on.

Re:Waste of time

[Macka]

Still this is all conjecture on your part, and by your own awareness of the issues you place yourself outside the realm of the 'average consumer' (renamed for clarity). So your buying habits are not representative of the majority market.

It would be nice to think that there's some kind of grass roots revolution going on. David rising up in anger to slay the evil Goliath, but outside of the Slashdot bubble world, where are the signs of it? Not one of my non-technical, music buying, 'consumer' friends is even aware of it. I know cos whenever I bring it up in conversation, all I get is blank looks. They react to it in the moment, then forget all about it and go back to buying their music the same old way they've always done.

Do keep beating the drum however. Maybe one day you might actually be heard above the foot falls of the million+ flock of sheep, as they trot off to their nearest MPAA approved music outlet.

Re:Waste of time

[zoftie]

Business is to make money, especially hollywood, you know who run runs hollywood, they kind that would choke for every penny, in hindsight do not see anything more then the money and heads of the Hollywood are of particular er, cast. They are known to be getting rich off other people, with MINIMAL expense on their part. So much in fact that they will not do anything creative at all.
Hollywood should die a horrible death. Because of its nature, sice anything concieved in its womb is a horrible product, likes of Speed 2: cruise control. Or other crimes against art of making movies. Truth is they are swinging the bat as hard as they can but all there is .. is ghosts. They are playing a loosing battle.

I have gone to many concerts and public performances, but I have not paid a single dollar for my own copyrighted material, since most of what is sold is trash. I can download it watch it and delete it, since it is not worth the space it is stored under. Uh even though storage is so cheap nowadays.

Elton John on Much More music last night said, that there isn't a whole lot more of wholesome artists anymore, everyone is "made" and most can't even perform live. Well they can lipsynch.
Which is true.

Re:Waste of time

[AviLazar]

Hollywood is trying to maximize their profits? Good gods, what could they possibly be thinking?

These people put substantial money up (producers) and take a risk. You may not like what Hollywood is producing (you didn't like LOTR?) but apparantly a lot of people do.
You may not like what the music industry is pumping out, but apparantly a lot of people do.
So the real question is: If you do not like it - why are you wasting your time d/ling and storing it? My guess is either you are sadistic and like inflicting pain on yourself *OR* you do like the music - but don't want to pay. While that *IS* morally and legally wrong - I can understand not wanting to pay for something when you can get it for free...but don't go around bashing entire industries, their artists, and the people who work hard hours in an attempt to "justify" your actions...that is just plain wrong - and I would hope everyone on /. would see that.

Re:Waste of time

[crankyspice]

"MPAA did not win a single court case in 2004."

What about 321 Studios? Rossi? (That's all Lexis shows after a cursory search; I can dig deeper if anyone's truly that bored...)

Official statement by Finnish police

[kinki]

http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/krp/home.nsf/PFBD/28 FB313B1DCD10EAC2256F6A004A5FA5?opendocument in Finnish, sorry.

Re:Official statement by Finnish police

[aussie_a]

How dare they speak Finnish! You should be sorry.

Re:Official statement by Finnish police

[upside]

The crime investigation unit together with local units is investigating the extensive distribution of films, music and other material on the Internet as a suspected intellectual property crime. Numerous home searches have been conducted around Finland as part of the investigation.

The case involves the distribution of copyrighted material using the BitTorrent-p2p application, which is used to share files between users. Registration is required to access the network [Sic, they are mixing up finreactor with bt]. When a user downloads material on offer, he also becomes a distributor for other users who are downloading the file. The maximum penalty for an intellectual property crime is two years' imprisonment, and these kinds of crimes often involve payment for damages.

Distributed materials included among other things films, music, software and games for a total of about 6000 titles. One title may have contained for example a single CD, the entire back catalog of an artist or several films. The network has been used to distribute material worth many millions of euros.

Four administrators and 30 moderators are from around Finland are suspected of maintaining the network. The network has had an estimated 10 000 users, presumably all Finnish.

The early investigative part of the case will take many months.

Apologies for the awkward translation. Don't know the equivalent legal terms in English that well so some meanings are probably lost. Don't turn me in for pilfering their text.

Bugger...

[lukedukekiwi]

I might just be a bit paranoid... but i better start stockpiling some movies/tv for xmas now just incase

Re:Bugger...

[jonathan_ingram]

No 'Only Fools and Horses' this Christmas, happily -- although I'm sure the rest of the programmes will lower their standards enough to make up for this one piece of good news.

Reporting in the media.

[zalle]

What's completely, utterly amazing that there hasn't been a single mention of the incident in the news of any of the tv channels, nor anything in the major papers either. For a while there was a short item on the site of Helsingin Sanomat (the largest paper in Finland) but that was taken away after an hour or so. Makes you suspect that the police might actually be controlling any reporting on the subject? Guess that's it for truly independent mass media in Finland.

Re:Reporting in the media.

[EvilNTUser]

"What's completely, utterly amazing that there hasn't been a single mention of the incident in the news of any of the tv channels, nor anything in the major papers either."

Yes, there was.

"Makes you suspect that the police might actually be controlling any reporting on the subject?"

No, it doesn't.

"Guess that's it for truly independent mass media in Finland."

Troll.

Re:Reporting in the media.

[mikkom]

For a while there was a short item on the site of Helsingin Sanomat (the largest paper in Finland) but that was taken away after an hour or so.

It's still there, there was also article in iltasanomat, finnish text tv and many other major news sources.

BSA and microsoft will propably want to get as much news coverage as possible, why would they want to hide the raid?

Re:Reporting in the media.

[zalle]

Well, the item sure as hell wasn't available on the list yesterday, and I still can't figure a way to get to it except using the search specifically for it. I bet you've seen the pictures of the list when it still was there, but if you checked the same list later, there was no link, somebody took it out. Same thing goes for tekstitv, it was there for a while. And I'd really like to hear about these "major news sources", maybe you're referring to quality sites like gamebase.fi?

Re:Reporting in the media.

[zalle]

I guess you can point me to these mentions in whatever media there is. Because I sure as hell haven't seen anything, and I think I've looked really hard for them.

Re:Reporting in the media.

[mikkom]

I bet you've seen the pictures of the list when it still was there, but if you checked the same list later, there was no link, somebody took it out.

There is no need for conspiracy theories (at least stupid ones), helsingin sanomat just shows only latest news on their sites news list. If you want access to all news, you need to pay for them.

I bet the same thing applies for text tv, the news got old, other things got the space.

As I stated, BSA and Microsoft (who were ultimately behind the raid according to police) WANT the publicity so why would they want to hide the news? Or are you suggesting that there is some secret pirate conspiracy that wants to hide the news to avoid panic in transferring pirated files?

Re:Reporting in the media.

[mikkom]

I'd really like to hear about these "major news sources"

Forgot to answer that one, here you are (hope links work okay, these files were moved constantly from address to another yesterday)

There are screenshots at least from Kaleva (biggest magazine in nothern finland), iltalehti (biggest tabloid or whatever it's called in finland), yle (national finnish tv) text tv, ylex (national finnish radio), mikrobitti (biggest finnish computer 'hobbyist' magazine), itviikko (biggest weekly it-magazine for corporations), digitoday (biggest it internet news service in finland, owned by kauppalehti, biggest financial news magazine in finland) and there are propably many smaller magazies that just haven't gotten there.

Re:Reporting in the media.

[zalle]

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, I'm saying that somebody took the news item _off the list_, for whatever reasons, while other, older news items from yesterday were left there. One possibility is that the police wanted it out. And what comes to the other reports none of the truly big media sources like HS, Aamulehti, or MTV3 have mentioned it anywhere accessible, but I have to admit the Iltasanomat story is fairly big. Please note that all the other sites/papers mentioned are still fairly small or specialized.

Re:Reporting in the media.

[mikkom]

Iltasanomat story is fairly big

There was also a similar article at iltalehti, turun sanomat and so on. These are not small magazines.

Re:Reporting in the media.

[Kassiopeia]

The major media are only waking up. Aamulehti, which you yourself mentioned, ran a story this morning right on page five, and MTV3's website has the story now as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see a mention in the ten o'clock news tonight on the 15th.

The HS website incident is probably a fluke or an incomprehensible editing decision in their end, which probably has had nothing to do with the authorities.

Re:Reporting in the media.

[zalle]

Yeah, it's everywhere now. Let's just see about tomorrow's HS, if they aren't running the story or if it's just something very short then something is happening there.

PR Blitz!

[NoSuchGuy]

The *AAs see this as a success in their "crusade" against "pirates".

Remember: Moderating on websites may impact your criminal record.

Scary Stuff...

[Stop Error]

I am not familiar with Dutch law but they are going to sue people for copyright infringement even though they didn't host any copyrighted files? If they are held responsible for "facilitating" copyright infringement they by the same logic could not their ISP? Or their hosting provider? (if not the same as the ISP)

Am I wrong in thinking that following this logic I couldn't discus code that may be proprietary on my site as it may lead to infringement? What if I link to a site that contains eDonkey or BitTorrent links. Are they going to kick my server room door in as well?

I find this very scary

Re:Scary Stuff...

[farnz]

The law includes the concept of intent; their ISP or hosting provider intended to allow legitimate material to be hosted, so is in the clear. They intended to make it easy to find unauthorised sharing of copyrighted material, and are thus at risk.

If you discuss proprietary code, with the intention of breaking the law, you're at risk; if you didn't intend to break the law, you should be clear. If the intent of your link to a link site is to provide an example of what these sites look like (such as when the New York Times linked to suprnova.org) or to link people to legal file sharing, you should be clear. If you link with the intention of encouraging people to break the law (e.g. "Get your favourite music FREE from this site"), you're at risk.

Of course, if you've got a particular activity in mind, consult a decent lawyer, rather than a random unqualified slashdotter :)

Re:Scary Stuff...

[mtenhagen]

And what if you want to warn people not to download files which should be bought and provide a list of hashcodes for those files so you know not to download those?

Linking is not illegal in The Netherlands. The police also said in a press statement the raid was for distributing. I dont know if they did distributed, but it might be that the maintainers used their servers to spread files among themselfs. If so they are fucked. If the servers only contain hash-codes their save

Re:Scary Stuff...

[farnz]

Then you didn't intend to break the law, or to encourage people to break the law, thus you should be clear.

Linking is not in and of itself illegal, and it shouldn't be. It's the intent behind the linking that matters; if you are encouraging people to break the law, you run the risk of a conspiracy type charge, regardless of whether you do it by linking to filesharing opportunities, asking people to steal, or telling people to speed.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFP

Yes, he's blowing his karma to hell. No, he's not talking about legal P2P, only illegal, which most /. readers will get up in arms about ("how dare they stop me from stealing!")

Had you ever created or accomplished anything worthwhile, you'd likely understand.

I should register an account so know-nothings can mod me down and dock my karma, too.

A Vaild Argument?

[s7uar7]

Has anyone actually fought the RIAA cases, or have they all been settled out of court? If I understand it correctly, they are suing people who are sharing files, not those downloading, and they are asking for $x per file shared. Wouldn't it be valid to ask them to prove how long you spent connected to the p2p network and then multiply this by your available bandwidth. That way you may be able to argue that you could only possibly have uploaded a certain number of songs, regardless of how many you were sharing. Sure, you may still end up paying a couple of hundred bucks, but that's far better than the few thousand I've read about.

Re:A Vaild Argument?

[abbamouse]

You're missing the point. The law in the US is that users are liable for obscene amounts of money for every song. So let's say they can only prove you uploaded 5 songs. US copyright law provides for statutory damages of $750 to $30,000 per violation. So even if the court concludes that the infringement was not "willfull" (i.e. you didn't know the songs were copyrighted, etc) then you're still liable for a minimum of $3750. Now suppose you actually uploaded a few dozen songs and you did understand P2P so that the infringement was "willful." You're liable for over a million dollars in damages for just 34 songs! Therefore, unless you are sure you can win that only one or two songs were uploaded and that the infringement was not willful, you should settle. And of course, all of this assumes lawyers work for free. You'll probably spend thousands even on a successful defense. The law makes the RIAA's extortion easy because of its grossly disproportionate "statutory damages."

Re:A Vaild Argument?

[Carrot007]

: Wouldn't it be valid

Possibly. However it would be expecting reason. The RIAA are not reasonable.

Re:A Vaild Argument?

[AviLazar]

I do not know if it is grossly disproportionate. First off I highly doubt they will know exactly how many songs you uploaded - their figures will probably be far less.

Second and more importantly the law always stipulates that monetary damages be substantially (grossly) higher then actual costs. If the law said "get caught u/ling a movie and you gotta pay for each instance the standard market price" - you will see more people taking chances...why? Well *IF* the person gets caught - they pay a few hundred - no big deal...and the people doing the investing/sueing paid a lot more for their fees. Now if the penalties are insanely high and potential jail time --- well the threat is a lot more substantial.
Again this is not the first time that the law gives STRONG penalties for relatively minor crimes.

Re:A Vaild Argument?

[seanscottrogers]

That response is like stealing a candy bar and then saying "I'll just pay for the candy bar" when you get caught. It's not the point. Financial punishment is a part of getting caught, more so than the actual value of the thing stolen. Not that I'm a fan of either MPAA or RIAA, but that would be the way a court would respond to your comment.

accessory to a crime?

[qwp]

have ever happened to innocent till proven guilty?
Because as it appears from that article, they provided a means, that is not commiting a crime.

Ford Motor company created a efficent fast self contained escape vehicle. Yet, BP is not sueing Ford for all of the robberies that take place with cars as the transportation vehicle. This whole issue seams very disorted by those who have links into media?(just a thought)

/me Dones His Tinfoil Snow Suit.

Re:accessory to a crime?

[Drantin]

But what if the site had a section labeled something like 'Warez' which would indicate that the explicit purpose of that section was for copyright infringement?

I have no idea if it did or not as the article doesn't seem to mention what the site was and just lists things that were there...

Re:accessory to a crime?

[Johan Veenstra]

They were actively moderating these forums. Failing to delete any of the links to illegally shared files -> accessory.

The Ford Motor company does make escape vehicles, but they do not come with instructions on how to rob BP as efficiently as possible.

Here in the netherlands, file sharing programs like Kazaa and Bittorrent are legal. When you use them to share files that you are allowed to share (let say the latest Red Hat distribution), you are not doing anything illegal. Good for you.

But when you use those programs to share files that you are not allowed to share (let say the latest Britney Spears album), you are doing something illegal, and you can be held accountable.

When you moderate a site which purpose it is to find files that are not supposed to be shared freely, you help others brake the law, and therefore you are an accessory to a crime. It's that simple.

Re:accessory to a crime?

[qwp]

In the article it blames these people for the crime. Not accessory to a crime. They(corperations) seam to want the moderators to pay for damages.

Re:accessory to a crime?

[juhaz]

have ever happened to innocent till proven guilty?

Nothing of course. Nobody has been proven guilty. Nobody has even been arrested. Heck, anyone
hasn't even been charged to court, yet! All that took place was searching evidence for a possible crime.

Why don't you come back and bitch _IF_ they will be convicted?

Because as it appears from that article, they provided a means, that is not commiting a crime.

Well, actually yes it can mean that, under most laws, accessory to a crime is a crime in itself. You think it should be legal to sell a gun to a person who tells you he's going to use it to murder someone?

What's important here is that they charged money for providing the means, police wouldn't have gotten search warrant without that significant fact, and really, if someone is stupid enough to do that, I don't feel sorry for them in the slightest. It's just begging for it.

It'd be different if they started raiding people for sharing a latest britney spears song.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[m50d]

It is not anyone's right to break the law, no matter how silly the law is.

Yeah. And Nelson Mandela was wrong to disobey the apartheid laws.

A bad law is a bad thing, and civil disobedience is one way to protest it.

Why police?

[bigberk]

Maybe the law in Finland is quite different, by why would the police carry out such a raid? There are no criminal offences involved. There are no laws being broken, no crimes being committed right?

If the industry wants to sue someone that's civil action as I understand it.

Are the police becoming the henchmen for the corporations? Man, that would scare the shit out of me.

Maybe the cops should be, oh I dunno... stopping dangerous people, who carry out assault, rape, murder, abductions... nah, that's too easy right?

Re:Why police?

[Jarnis]

See my other post.

They took money ('donations') for access to the site. That makes it a crime. With max 2 years in the can, plus any damages to the studios/software companies.

But you are right, the case does have lots of question marks. Basically it'a test case for Finland. If it ultimately goes nowhere, expect tighter laws as an answer.

Re:Why police?

[johannesg]

So you would rather have private entities kicking down your door, looking for ill-doing on your part? Talk about scary...

Re:Why police?

[j-turkey]

Are the police becoming the henchmen for the corporations? Man, that would scare the shit out of me.

I wouldn't go that far. The police are here to enforce the law. Now I fully understand that IP theft is not the same as property theft...but violating IP rights is a type of theft, and that's a criminal offense (at least in the US). If you stole from me (IP or physical), I would likely contact the police and file criminal charges. The police would arrest you, and in the US, the district attorney would decide on whether or not to prosecute. That's the way it works here (and has worked here for some time). I don't know much about foreign laws, but I'm not so sure that pointing to illegal things should be considered illegal itself. I'm unaware of the details, but it will work itself out in court. The moral here is that if you don't want to be inconvenienced by the criminal justice system...well, not breaking the law is obvious, but to take it a step further, stay away from fringe activity on a massive scale. Eventually, someone was gonna challenge those guys -- in this case, they practically had a big red target painted on their backs for the IP owners to take pot shots at. Is any of this right on any side? Probably not -- but the lesson is clear, if you don't want to be dragged into it, stay away.

The police are there to do a job...I'd like to think that they'd do the same job for you or I regardless of whether or not we were incorporated to do business. I understand that this is a weak analogy, but take it for what it is -- if someone broke into your house, you can take them to civil court, but it's also your option to press criminal charges.

Maybe the cops should be, oh I dunno... stopping dangerous people, who carry out assault, rape, murder, abductions... nah, that's too easy right?

I don't think that their homicide department shut down for a day so they could arrest some folks for IP violations. I also don't think that they pulled their beat cops off of the street for this. Hell, they didn't even stop issuing speeding tickets that day.

Re:Why police?

[maximilln]

If you stole from me (IP or physical), I would likely contact the police and file criminal charges. The police would arrest you, and in the US, the district attorney would decide on whether or not to prosecute

For a civil case, you can file a complaint, hire an attorney, and the court can send a summons to the alleged perp. The OP was right. The police are becoming paid corporate henchmen.

I've been questioning the definition of "licensing" for a long time. As near as I can tell, "licensing" is legal mumbo jumbo to turn the violation of a rental contract (not even a misdemeanor) into a felony offense just so that the burden of funding the attorneys is shifted from the corporations to the taxpayers.

Re:Why police?

[j-turkey]

For a civil case, you can file a complaint, hire an attorney, and the court can send a summons to the alleged perp. The OP was right. The police are becoming paid corporate henchmen.

Yes...for a civil case, you can file a complaint. But if someone is violating your IP, there is a criminal recourse. You know the dumb FBI warning at the beginning of VHS' and DVD's? That's informing you that the owner has a criminal recourse against you under US law. Just because copyright owners have chosen not to press criminal charges does not mean that it's neither possible nor acceptable. You knew about it 20 years ago when VHS hit the mainstream...this shouldn't be a surprise.

The police are not corporate henchmen any more than they would be your henchmen if you filed criminal charges against a burglar who broke into your house (you can file civil charges too).

Re:Why police?

[gtkuhn]

Now THAT would be a crime. When a private entity kicks down your door, you defend your home. You'd probably be outnumbered, but at least grab the kitchen knives and make as big and bloody a mess as possible. Corps will inevitably attempt this. They must be taught that it's not a worthwhile course of action.

Re:Why police?

[maximilln]

You know the dumb FBI warning at the beginning of VHS' and DVD's?

That's precisely my point. There is no such thing as "licensing". What you have is a glorified rental agreement. Flooding the political and judicial system with lobbyists to turn a rental agreement violation into a felony is a farce.

The police are not corporate henchmen any more than they would be your henchmen if you filed criminal charges against a burglar who broke into your house (you can file civil charges too).

As I (we've) said, the police are becoming corporate henchmen. Burglary has been a felonious offence since the beginning of man. Copying your friends work (eg. cheating on tests) has been, at most, something that gave you 30 minutes after school writing on the chalkboard.

Re:Why police?

[j-turkey]

What you have is a glorified rental agreement.

And unauthorized redistribution is a felony. It always was. We always knew it, we've been watching VHS tapes for decades, and I know that I read that warning at least once. I really hope that you're not just figuring out about it now. Just because you don't believe it's right doesn't mean that it's not the law. It's a felony. It doesn't make anyone anyone's henchman. It means that the police are doing their jobs.

Re:Why police?

[maximilln]

And unauthorized redistribution is a felony

Under what authority is it a felony? I can rent a tape, mangle it, and toss it over the freeway. That's LEGITIMATE loss, and it's not a felony. However, if I take a tape and copy it, that is a felony.

It doesn't make sense unless you factor in the influence of greed and lobbyists.

Just because you don't believe it's right doesn't mean that it's not the law

Where do you draw the line? Under that sort of sentiment we do not live in a democratically elected Constitutional republic. If our laws are not based on the feelings of right and wrong within society, then we have nothing more than a cartel government similar to the Taliban enforcing their own personal agendas on the people within their geographical reach.

It means that the police are doing their jobs

So are spammers and malware writers. Where do you draw the line?

Unless you stick strictly to the Constitutionally granted powers of the feds then there is no line. You deteriorate to little better than cartel rulership.

Re:Why police?

[j-turkey]

Copying your friends work (eg. cheating on tests) has been, at most, something that gave you 30 minutes after school writing on the chalkboard.

...and unauthorized redistribution is not the same as copying off of someone's test in school. It's not even close. It's not even in the same ballpark -- not even the same sport. The reason the penalties are so high? Well, first of all, it's hard to catch a violator (so when someone is finally caught, they very much want to make sure that person doesn't do it again), and secondly, it undermines the entire copyright system. Fair use is what it is. Copying a friends tape...nobody will turn any stones up for you. But widespread distribution (ala BitTorrent et al) certainly does undermine that system. You may be idealisticly right...but in the eyes of the law, you're just wrong. The law couldn't give a shit about you and your ideals...and if you screw up, your ideals likely won't mean much to you from a prison cell.

Even outside of this...a store can press misdemeanor charges for theft too. Who cares? The police are henchmen because you don't think it should be a felony? Oh please. Anyhow, I guess we're both pretty OT, since this didn't happen in the US, and US case law doesn't mean a thing in Finland. The translated article explains exactly how and why it has become a felony case.

Re:Why police?

[maximilln]

unauthorized redistribution is not the same as copying off of someone's test in school

And it's also not the same as stealing or destroying an actual physical product. You will never be able to say anything which will convince anyone that there's more damage done in copying than in actual destruction. Unless the destruction of a videotape is a felony then copying should not be. It's as simple as that.

Well, first of all, it's hard to catch a violator

That is no excuse. If it's so hard to catch someone, perhaps you ought to think twice about whether or not they're really doing anything wrong. Try being sensible: if you make a product which is easily duplicated then you, as the producer, accept liability. It is not society's duty to watch your back. They didn't do it for Tucker, or Wankel, or Betamax, or Motorola, or any other good idea that was hatched by one person and taken by another with a legal,"Ha! Ha! You couldn't afford the patent so it's perfectly legal for us to steal this!" If you don't want to worry about copying then use a medium which isn't so easily copied... and find out just how important your product really is.

secondly, it undermines the entire copyright system

The current implementation of the copyright system undermines the Constitution. Which is the higher authority?

Copying a friends tape...nobody will turn any stones up for you

Rationalizing selective enforcement is no excuse for abuse.

But widespread distribution (ala BitTorrent et al) certainly does undermine that system

I'm not defending people who are into widespread distribution, and have a special amount of disdain for those who think they have a right to profit from redistributing someone else's work. That said, however, the copyright system is still an unconstitutional farce.

You may be idealisticly right...but in the eyes of the law, you're just wrong

Under what authority is that law enforced? Again, the Constitution only identifies inventors or creators, not the corporations who buy the first copy. It makes no provision for the assignment or transferral of copyright. If you want to enforce laws outside of the Constitution then accept that you're no better than the Taliban, or Hussein, or Iran, or former Eastern Bloc nations, or China. We have a rulebook which sets the framework for the Republic of the United States of America. If you want to disregard the rulebook so that you can browbeat 16-year old music traders that's your business--but quit taking cash out of my pocket (taxes to pay the police, the attorneys, the courts, and on) as if you're protecting our Nation.

a store can press misdemeanor charges for theft too

Sure can. That's a loss of physical property. Again. Destroy a tape, pay $16. Copy a tape, return the original, go to prison. It makes no sense.

The translated article explains exactly how and why it has become a felony case

Because of profit. But don't think it's stopping there. The *AA is going after anyone they can.

Re:Why police?

[j-turkey]

Under what authority is it a felony? I can rent a tape, mangle it, and toss it over the freeway. That's LEGITIMATE loss, and it's not a felony. However, if I take a tape and copy it, that is a felony.

It seems as clear as it's always been. Copying for personal use usually fits in under fair use. As I've been saying over and over again, distribution is a felony. That means that nobody will care about what you do in your own house for personal use. However, if you buy 4 dozen recorders and start duplicating like crazy and selling them...that's distribution and thus a felony. Offering them for public download is also distribution. Just because it's easy to do doesn't make it any less a violation of the law.

Where do you draw the line? Under that sort of sentiment we do not live in a democratically elected Constitutional republic. If our laws are not based on the feelings of right and wrong within society, then we have nothing more than a cartel government similar to the Taliban enforcing their own personal agendas on the people within their geographical reach.

Couple of points here. Just because you don't agree with the law, doesn't mean that it's not fair. There are plenty of laws that don't fall within my sense of right and wrong. My choices are to either follow the law, or prepare to accept the consequences of not doing so. It's very simple. Part of the deal with a representative democracy is that we elect people to interpret the issues and make appropriate decisions for us. I'll agree that there's probably a better way, but unlike you, I don't think it's a travesty. If you had it your way, we would only be in a cartel enforcing your own agenda and sense of right and wrong and it's abundantly clear...you seem to think that your sense of right and wrong is "the way". Obviously, I disagree with you, and the recording industry certainly disagrees with you. If I'm wrong (and I hope I am wrong about you, because you seem like a pretty smart fellow), where are you willing to compromise on this issue?

So are spammers and malware writers. Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at being a public servant. If the police were writing malware and spamming, I'd have a problem with it. The job of the police is to just enforce the law. In terms of the law, everyone gets their word in...the political groups representing you and I (ACLU, EFF, etc), lobbists who support the interests of businesses (which, unfortunately, are a necessary evil), and politicians who make deals with others to add pork onto their bills. Are you suggesting that businesses should get absolutely no say in how the law is written? If that were the case, people would screw businesses out of everything...and that would destroy our way of life.

Re:Why police?

[j-turkey]

And it's also not the same as stealing or destroying an actual physical product. You will never be able to say anything which will convince anyone that there's more damage done in copying than in actual destruction. Unless the destruction of a videotape is a felony then copying should not be. It's as simple as that.

OK -- we're getting into this argument...that physical property and IP are different and thus theft if physical property and IP aren't the same. I totally agree with you. My example with physical theft from your house and a store were analogies (and you then took them out of context...my example showed how property owners can press criminal charges for theft). So theft of IP and theft of physical property are different. Where your logic completely falls apart is back to the if !A then B. If physical property theft is not the same as IP theft -- the concept of IP theft must be a total farce. This is not right.

So there's no lost inventory. So what? By making a zillion copies of a DVD, you dilute the value of a movie. If I steal stock from a company, that is just IP by printing duplicate certificates. There is likely no Constitutional law dealing with this...but it dilutes the value of someone else's commodity. Pirating movies is no different. We're not talking about personal use here...we're talking about distribution. We keep moving off of this track. Problem is that P2P has made them very similar.

Under what authority is that law enforced? Again, the Constitution only identifies inventors or creators, not the corporations who buy the first copy.

Again, Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. Nobody is disregarding any rulebook here. You're just not reading it (or possibly reading it selectively).

That's a loss of physical property. Again. Destroy a tape, pay $16. Copy a tape, return the original, go to prison. It makes no sense.

It does make sense...you're diluting the value of a commodity. Think of it this way...the US dollar is a commodity. Destroy it, you're out a buck. Steal it, it's a misdemeanor. Copy it, and go to prison. It makes total sense, because you're diluting the value for everyone. What copyright law does is allows for ownership (and transfer of, as well as licensing of for certain things) of IP, and allows the owner to value that at anything the owner wants. The market can choose to bear the cost or choose not to. The government offers protection to those who own the copyrights.

Because of profit. But don't think it's stopping there. The *AA is going after anyone they can.

I'll half agree with you again. I think it's a farce that they went after those guys. I'm not convinced that they did anything illegal by pointing to people distributing files. Now, there were some semantics in TFA that suggest that they did a few things that were enough on the fringe to warrant an investigation (nobody has been arrested yet). However, I think it's the the MPAA being lazy. It's expensive to sue every file swapper (it's expensive to sue anyone), so they went after an easy target...the enabler. Even if they win, we both know that P2P won't go away. But really, they should be going after the people who break the law. Not the people who point to illegal stuff.

Remember, just because you don't agree with the law doesn't give you a right to break it. Many people make the same mistake and find themselves in unpleasant situations.

Re:Why police?

[maximilln]

Copying for personal use usually fits in under fair use

Not in the US. Why not? Because no one ever drew a line on the limits and no one bothers to adhere to the original rulebook.

distribution is a felony

Distribution of _WHAT_? Distribution of someone else's copyrighted work? Do we have any original authors or inventors or creators up on the stands? No.

That means that nobody will care about what you do in your own house for personal use

We used to say that about backups for archival purposes, too.

However, if you buy 4 dozen recorders and start duplicating like crazy and selling them...that's distribution and thus a felony

I think the key word here is selling. There a clear connection can be made to loss of profit. Simply duplicating though... in the 80s, Madonna and Metallica called that free advertising. Without shared copies (not sold copies), Madonna would be some street junky and Metallica never would've made it out of the high school auditorium.

Just because you don't agree with the law, doesn't mean that it's not fair

This isn't about fair. This is about legally empowered. There is no legal empowerment to hunt down file-sharers or music traders. The legal empowerment is to protect original inventors and creators, not the mega-corp that bought the first copy.

you had it your way, we would only be in a cartel enforcing your own agenda and sense of right and wrong

Typical drivel which comes from people who are jealous because they rely on someone else to take care of them.

In terms of the law, everyone gets their word in

I think you're the one being idealistic now.

Are you suggesting that businesses should get absolutely no say in how the law is written?

I'm saying that 99.99% of the laws passed every year are passed under a false pretense of authority and empowerment.

The most important thing a politician can say is,"We're sorry. That's _NOT_ our job." In America they've forgotten how to do that.

If that were the case, people would screw businesses out of everything...and that would destroy our way of life.

Straw man argument. When left to themselves people will, in the vast majority, get along and cooperate without the involvement of a mega-government. If it were any other way you and I would be extinct or hunting our neighbors.

Re:Why police?

[maximilln]

Where your logic completely falls apart is back to the if !A then B

Are you trying to be cool? This is about severity. If I cut your arm off, you no longer have your arm. If I break your arm, you lose use for a little while. If I paint your arm blue then you deal with a blue arm. Painting an arm blue should not warrant a greater crime than breaking your arm.

Copying a product should not be a felony if physical destruction of the property isn't even a misdemeanor. It's as simple as that.

By making a zillion copies of a DVD, you dilute the value of a movie

That's a theory that assumes that a DVD has infinite value. Another theory is that a DVD has a finite value and that value is reached once the first copy is sold. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

If I steal stock from a company, that is just IP by printing duplicate certificates.

Good point. This has never been statistically shown. Stock has a finite limit. There are N shares available at any one time. If a company has a million copies of a CD, at $16/ea, and you produce and make 100 copies, then the value of the CD is still $16 million. The value per copy is slightly less than $16. Logically the only thing this proves is that the media company is overcharging.

Pretty nice argument... I'm leaving work. My final word is: I agree with IP. I do not, in any way, agree with our current implementation or enforcement of it. Personally I feel we'd be better off with a system that tells us to police ourselves. It would minimize abuse and would encourage only the truly talented and devoted people to succeed. The rest would become discouraged and quit. Cry me a river. They can serve my popcorn.

Re:Why police?

[0111 1110]

And unauthorized redistribution is a felony. It always was.

Actually that is not entirely accurate, at least for US law. The NET Act signed by Clinton in 1997 changed our copyright laws significantly. It removed the "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" requirement. Before 1997 file sharing was not criminal.

Due to the NET Act however $1000-$2499 in total value of infringing material is a misdemeanor with up to a 1 year prison sentence. $2500+ is a felony with up to a 3 year prison sentence.

However the infringement must be "willful" meaning the violator must have knowledge of the laws they are violating (in this case the NET Act). So ignorance of the law is a defense in this case. Probably a good reason why we rarely see this law enforced against file sharers.

The laws you refer to on VHS tapes simply do not apply. That was only if you were actually selling stuff. The changed laws do however.

Re:Why police?

[j-turkey]

Not in the US. Why not? Because no one ever drew a line on the limits and no one bothers to adhere to the original rulebook.

Well, here's the deal...with new technology comes new rules. History has taught us this over and over again. It has to be sorted out in the courts. When P2P came out, IP owners argued that stretched pretty far beyond the limits of fair use. Just becuase you're not charging money for it doesn't mean that it dilutes the value of the product by giving it away for free. The economics of it are so simple that even I can understand it...how can you possibly compete with free? I really want to be able to say that it doesn't hurt anyone and copy away. I'd have a much clearer conscience, but this is not the case. (My shit stinks just as much as anyone else's...I pirate too). Let me put it this way. If you counterfeit money and give it away for free, you're still a counterfeiter, right? (They throw the book at you for this). I just think that it's important to understand both sides of the equation here -- this is about more than just money grubbing assholes. It's the entire IP industry...I think they have a right to exist, and their copyrights deserve limited protection. You clearly think that copyrigts deserve absolutely no merit and should never be treated as a commodity.

There is no legal empowerment to hunt down file-sharers or music traders. The legal empowerment is to protect original inventors and creators, not the mega-corp that bought the first copy.

I think that you're failing (or refusing) to make an abstraction from an abstraction. If people can own intellectual property, and treat is as a commodity, that means that people can trade their rights to that property as they see fit. We're not talking about a child/slave labor here. Sometimes, people make royalty agreements in exchange for someone else financing their idea. Sometimes that's what it takes to make money. It's not that different from business startup financing. Don't want to play that way with your IP, fine -- do it your way...but why whould that stop people from doing it their way? Personally, I want as many options at my disposal as possible.

Typical drivel which comes from people who are jealous because they rely on someone else to take care of them

Are you kidding me? Well, I do depend on my government for protection, if that's what you mean (interesting how we disagree the other way about the strongest guy being right -- I like that brute muscle doesn't declare the winner...are we agreeing throughout all of this and just disagreeing for the hell of it?)...I also depend on them to look out for the value of my currency (although that's largely market driven). It's also pretty cool to have someone trying to keep foreign invaders out. In any case, I'm not going to respond to that by pointing fingers.

I think you're the one being idealistic now.

Perhaps I am, you're right. However, there are lobbies that are fighting for our rights...the EFF, ACLU, etc. I donate to them, and in that sense, I'm voting with my dollar and making sure that my values are accounted for. It's not ideal, but I think it's something & feel pretty good about it. They make a difference.

I'm saying that 99.99% of the laws passed every year are passed under a false pretense of authority and empowerment.

Does this mean that we should be able to break them, consequence free? Because we don't agree with the logic? It's all about compromise.

The most important thing a politician can say is,"We're sorry. That's _NOT_ our job." In America they've forgotten how to do that.

Amen to that brutha. Once again, we're back in agreement. Problem is that in this sense, we're an outspoken minority. Most people want our

Re:Why police?

[j-turkey]

However the infringement must be "willful" meaning the violator must have knowledge of the laws they are violating (in this case the NET Act). So ignorance of the law is a defense in this case. Probably a good reason why we rarely see this law enforced against file sharers.

Aww, you bastard! Now that I know about the NET Act, my IP crimes are willful and I'm a felon. ;)

Re:Why police?

[j-turkey]

Copying a product should not be a felony if physical destruction of the property isn't even a misdemeanor. It's as simple as that.

I think that destruction of property and will piracy are two different things...and remember our (lameass) laws about stuff like website defacing. They'll throw the book at you for stuff like that.

Personally I feel we'd be better off with a system that tells us to police ourselves. It would minimize abuse and would encourage only the truly talented and devoted people to succeed. The rest would become discouraged and quit.

Yeah -- I'm all about self-policing. Problem is that sometimes large groups of people can take advantage of that. I believe that in this case, our government is being pretty hands off...and it's being taken advantage of. Do you really think that if there were a genuine threat of jail time for file sharers, they'd still share? Honestly, I've been inside of enough jails (only one prison) to know that I absolutely do not want to be incarcerated, and it would likely deter me. OTOH, it hasn't stopped me from smoking pot. I just know the law, accept the potential consequences of my actions, am relatively careful, and have a small legal slush fund just in case.

Re:Why police?

[maximilln]

Problem is that sometimes large groups of people can take advantage of that.

Most of them are registered on Wall Street.

believe that in this case, our government is being pretty hands off

Their hands are pretty strong when they find in favor of click-through EULAs and gargantuan employee agreements. That's all about intellectual property.

Do you really think that if there were a genuine threat of jail time for file sharers, they'd still share?

Think about what you're saying. Do you really think file-sharing warrants jail time? If you want to enforce the rights of the inventors and creators, how about removing the laws which make it legal for corporations to hold those inventors and creators in a paycheck to paycheck stranglehold? I have yet to see a contract which includes a single right that I retain--they're all about the company.

Re:Why police?

[j-turkey]

Do you really think file-sharing warrants jail time?

Not necessarily...as an example, however, it warrants some consideration. What if this is the only way to make it clear that the government is serious about protecting copyrights? I'm not for taking a hard line against this stuff, but while we're discussing hypotheticals, wouldn't you stop if there was a real threat of jailtime?

If you want to enforce the rights of the inventors and creators, how about removing the laws which make it legal for corporations to hold those inventors and creators in a paycheck to paycheck stranglehold?

Nobody is holding a gun to the heads of creators and inventors. They don't have to have their ideas financed by a business...it's just an easy way to get in than raising the capital themselves. But it's just a farce that behind every great of idea or art, there must be an existing major business behind it. That's the choice of the creator/inventor. I'd prefer that people have that choice, as well as doing it themselves. Some things, such as video games are major productions that a group of people may own cooperatively (you know, a corporation). I don't see a problem with that -- it's part of our freedom to do business. (Yes, it's not perfect, I know -- I make no claims of perfection or even that it's good enough).

I believe that Internet is an excellent medium for doing it yourself. It cuts out the distributor as a middle man and as a major cost. The problem is that you don't have a major corporation behind you to promote whatever it is that you're selling...so you're on your own for marketing. This is fine. It's the choice of the IP owner to do this.

My feeling is that you seem to think that every owner of IP is being forced to sign away their IP. People are smart enough to realize what they're doing. Why not leave that choice in their hands? Is it because they're not making the decision you would prefer? Are they going after the fast cash instead of going the more hard work route? Again, shouldn't that be their decision?

Their hands are pretty strong when they find in favor of click-through EULAs and gargantuan employee agreements. That's all about intellectual property.

Patience. Now is not the time to throw in the towel in exasperation. Our government has always been, and always will be (I really hope) a work in progress. The fact is that you're "in the know" with some of this stuff. The majority of people writing letters and complaining are not "in the know", and the people writing the legislature are also (generally) not "in the know". This is one of the arenas where we may need some federal oversight, which will likely begin by attempting to address issues of malware. It will likely fail at first, and with any luck, the root problem may be addressed...which is click-through licensing, and illegally restrictive EULA's.

However, remember that nobody is forcing anyone to accept these crappy licenses. You seem to be "in the know" enough to use things like f/oss effectively...anyway, work calls

Re:Why police?

[maximilln]

What if this is the only way to make it clear that the government is serious about protecting copyrights?

That's my point of contention. I do not feel that the government should have any more than the most cursory involvement in the issue. Any involvement they should have should concentrate more on the original inventors and creators and less on he who holds the legally tendered rights.

Nobody is holding a gun to the heads of creators and inventors.

That is so old and overused that I'm going to ignore the rest of the section. It is completely ignorant of the powerful force that financial impact has. Let's stick with reality.

Patience. Now is not the time to throw in the towel in exasperation. Our government has always been, and always will be (I really hope) a work in progress.

Two hundred years ago when you bought land you put out stakes and said,"This is mine.". Now, even when you buy the land, even when you've paid every dollar on the mortgage, there is still some megacorp which holds the final title deed to the land as issued and recognized by other organizations which have all their own rules and conditions and channels and RED TAPE for denying you the right to own your land.

That's a work in progress.

Re:Why police?

[j-turkey]

I do not feel that the government should have any more than the most cursory involvement in the issue. Any involvement they should have should concentrate more on the original inventors and creators and less on he who holds the legally tendered rights.

We've been over the "it's the law" part of this, and I understand that you feel it shouldn't be...but right now, that's the way it is. When the government has enough interested parties pushing for it to act when those laws are broken -- law enforcement will ultimately become involved. This goes for all of our government...local, state, and federal. The interested parties may be lobbies representing corporations, unions, or other political organizations (MADD, ACLU, Christian right groups, etc). Sometimes politicians will champion causes (some pet issue) on their own...but I think that we're both cynical enough to sense that this doesn't happen much in the real world. In the end, I think that we'll both agree that the federal government have overstepped their boundaries. On the issue of where the overstepping happens; I think that we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. It boils down to a philosophical disagreement with thousand-year-old roots, and it's highly unlikely that it can be settled over a /. discussion. :)

It is completely ignorant of the powerful force that financial impact has. Let's stick with reality.

I'd like to understand where you're coming from on this one -- I'm reading that as a statement that artists/inventors are unable to resist easier financing by selling rights instead of raising their own capital(?).

Two hundred years ago when you bought land you put out stakes and said,"This is mine.". Now, even when you buy the land, even when you've paid every dollar on the mortgage, there is still some megacorp which holds the final title deed to the land as issued and recognized by other organizations which have all their own rules and conditions and channels and RED TAPE for denying you the right to own your land.

Interesting -- I haven't heard of this. Who holds the title/deed? In some cases title searches show old liens and chains of "invalid" ownership (for lack of a better term), but those are a matter of public record. I'm looking forward to reading what you know about this. Any links? Wiki?

Re:Why police?

[maximilln]

I'm reading that as a statement that artists/inventors are unable to resist easier financing by selling rights instead of raising their own capital(?)

(practicing self-restraint) No. Quit trolling.

Who holds the title/deed?

The bank still does. That's not the point. The point is that excusing government as a work in progress completely ignores that for the last 200 years the work in progress has been to generate more red tape to benefit DC and Wall Street.

Any links?

Google for Illodial (sp?). You'll find mostly Libertarian rantings and ravings, so spare me the critique. The bottom line is that it's true. You'll never own the land you think you own.

that certainly answers one question

[museumpeace]

that /. kicked around last week about "how could you prosecute BitTorrent since no one person is holding or moving whole copies of the copied works?"
I have to ask, since the article points out that police are also striking at eDonkey servers, when the cops are going to be knocking on my door. My son and half the kids in his dorm are swapping/swiping movies like crazy with eDonkey. All of a sudden it looks like I have to get knowledgable about my liability when he brings his computer home for the Christmas break.

Re:that certainly answers one question

[matth1jd]

The MPAA are, and the police in this case were going after the sites that host .torrent files, and whatever edonkey/emule uses to initiate transfers. So as long as your son wasn't running an actual eDonkey server (he was just simply a peer) out of his dorm room you should be fine.

You'll want to ask him if he is or not, it's not that hard - I set up a BT tracker on my campus LAN, and restricted IP access to only those from campus. Result: Very fast, semi-trusted file sharing network.

--J

Re:that certainly answers one question

[Jarnis]

I doubt they have resources to take on the Joe Random Leecher.

And in this case there is a small critical detail - cops have proof that the admins took money ('donations') for access to the tracker.

Basically, indirectly, they were selling warez.

Selling warez is bad.

Re:that certainly answers one question

[radixvir]

how do you know they were using the money themselves. many people who run servers ask for donations to pay for bandwidth and the servers themselves. IIRC, in the US at least, can't you take up to $1000 in donations without having to claim it on your tax return? It might be $100 but if they can prove that they were using the money for only running their servers, it might bring a lesser penalty.

Re:that certainly answers one question

[julesh]

I have to ask, since the article points out that police are also striking at eDonkey servers, when the cops are going to be knocking on my door. My son and half the kids in his dorm are swapping/swiping movies like crazy with eDonkey.

File swapping on eDonkey is not the same thing as running an eDonkey server. The network uses an architecture similar to napster, where there are numerous central servers that hold a cache of the list of files their clients are sharing and send back IPs that match any request they receive. There's about 1 server to every 10,000 or so users. I doubt you have much to worry about until they start prosecuting the sharers (as they have been doing for kazaa users in the past).

Re:that certainly answers one question

[Jarnis]

Problem is that by finnish law, if you take money when offering copyrighted stuff, the crime goes from 'tekijänoikeusrikkomus' (punishable by fine) to 'tekijänoikeusrikos' (punishable by upto 2 years in the can)

Re:that certainly answers one question

[museumpeace]

Thanks for the info about how eDonkey works...I can hardly keep up with the technology of all the P2P variants.
Does the dependency on passing around the IP of sharing peers mean that I can make a case against copyright violation [and probably break the P2P operation?] in the following way:
when that computer comes home from the dorm and goes behind my household firewall, I set the firewall to stealth mode, dropping pings and generally only supporting outbound http:get() and maybe vpn ports?

...I can deal with Junior's complaints more readily than subpoenas.

Re:that certainly answers one question

[Radish03]

As a student at a university who has some experience running edonkey there and at home behind a router/nat/firewall, I'd say that setup you have at home would prevent him from uploading to the vast majority of other clients out there (unless the ports necessary are unblocked) and thus by the nature of edonkey, this would prevent him from getting any decent download speeds. But I will also warn you, I ran edonkey (the emule precisely, but it doesn't really matter) for several months straight downloading the entire runs of several TV shows, until I recieved a letter from the university telling me Paramount pictures contacted them and said that my IP had been sharing some of their content which they specificly named via edonkey. The university doesn't hand out their student names in such cases, luckily, but they still said that disciplinary action could be taken for further violations. Companies issuing letters like this is in their power to do under the law, except for the fact that I had never downloaded or uploaded any owned by paramount pictures, and especially not the named files. But this placed me in a pickle because on one hand, I hadn't shared the alleged files, but I had shared other files that I couldn't very well lie about, and the university won't care whose files are being shared, they don't want that going on at all. Since then I've heard of a dozen or so others who recieved very similar letters around the same time. So from then on, I gave up on using edonkey and I would suggest letting your son know that movie/tv studios are specifically targetting university students using that network.

Maybe this is the MPAA's version of...

[DarkEdgeX]

..."shock and awe"?

I download TV shows

[sgant]

I do it every week. Yes, I know it's illegal. Yes I know I probably won't be able to in the future with the draconian laws coming down.

I have a special circumstance though. I live out in the middle of no where. I don't get broadcast TV except on one station...I do on the other hand get high-speed DSL.

Now I COULD get Comcast cable, but since I only watch 4 tv shows a week, I'm not going to be paying 50 bucks a month (yes, 50 bucks here even for just plain basic). Not to mention Comcast likes to raise their rates at the drop of a hat.

Dish services are also out because the number of trees they can't get a good signal, I've tried. SO that leaves me with downloading these TV shows.

But what the TV networks are missing out on is that THEY should offer torrents of their shows right from their web pages. If they throw in the regular commercials how is this different than just watching it over the airwaves? I would download them in a heartbeat and gladly watch their commercials if they did this. Why are so uptight about this? They should be like "hell, download all you wish and trade them with your friends...as long as the commercials are still there we're still making our money...and we could also target advertising better for people that download and that could generate even more money blah blah blah..."

Movies though, I don't download at all. Never have, never will.

Re:I download TV shows

[sgant]

Because its not convienent for you to get TV legally, that makes it alright to break the law right?

Right.

Re:I download TV shows

[sgant]

but again, this is different. These are broadcast TV shows that are going out over the airwaves anyway. Notice that I didn't say I was downloading music or movies or even cable TV shows. These are just shows over the ABC/FOX/NBC/CBS channels.

Again, if they were just to provide them on their websites, more people could view them...AND they could even get an accurate figure of how many people are watching these shows then a "Nielsen Family".

But hey, guess I'm a criminal...lock me up.

Re:I download TV shows

[EvilNTUser]

I agree with you, but the reason this isn't going to happen is that tv-networks would become obsolete. The producers could just sell their stuff directly on the net, to the whole world at once.

I'd be happy with that, of course. Screw the networks. But that's not how they'll see it...

Re:I download TV shows

[DarkEdgeX]

Have the courts actually touched the issue of downloading over the air broadcast television shows? I mean the SCOTUS seemed to indicate with the BetaMax case that time-shifting was okay-- would it really be at all different if it was someone else doing the time-shifting for you? You still could have taped it yourself or had your significant other do it for you, so where's the part that makes it illegal and punishable with fines and fees?

Movies, sure, there's not many ways to get those free. But music (FM radio) and television (rabbit ears)? Seems kind of shakey to me.

Re:I download TV shows

[Oblio]

That makes sense because just like chattel, when he downloads that TV show, no one else can see it!

Oh wait. That isn't the way idea's work is it?

*shrug* He is breaking the law, he doesn't care- why should you? (or I?)

IP is a blender of confusion. There are pragmatic reasons for it, but the law doesn't make sense, and the language of IP doesn't really make sense.

It makes it very hard to discuss.

Re:I download TV shows

[Znork]

I think the vast majority of TV show downloading that goes on is due to failures in distribution channels. If someone cannot in any reasonable fasion pay for a product it's rather hard to argue lost sales, or lost incentive to create.

And the MPAA can largely blame their own region coding for the popularity of movie piracy.

TV and movie theatres already have the compelling advantages (unlike the music industry) of quality, ease and accessibility that they need to compete favourably with piracy. IF they didnt squander their first-release advantage by artificial barriers like region codes and country targetted cable and satellite.

Re:I download TV shows

[91degrees]

No.

Because nobody is harmed it makes it alright to break the law. It's a bit of an anarchists argument, but not unreasonable.

Re:I download TV shows

[adeydas]

ya that goes under right to share...

Re:I download TV shows

[c0p0n]

... I would download them in a heartbeat and gladly watch their commercials if they did this.

Sure.

Re:I download TV shows

[blankman]

They should be like "hell, download all you wish and trade them with your friends...as long as the commercials are still there we're still making our money...and we could also target advertising better for people that download and that could generate even more money blah blah blah..."

Until someone fires up VirtualDub and cuts out the commercials, even if they use some sort of futile DRM.

Re:I download TV shows

[Rassleholic]

But what the TV networks are missing out on is that THEY should offer torrents of their shows right from their web pages.

But they won't. This isn't about losing money. This is about control over what you watch and how you watch it. With broadcast tv, the entertainment cabal has a reasonable guarentee that you will see the commercials. However, with the idea you are describing, they have no way of knowing if you are watching their DRM'd sealed and approved subpar real video file, or a h4x0r3d high quality commercial free divx file based on what they sent out. They fear the distribution potential the internet offers not because of potential revenue losses from "piracy", but because they lose a degree of control to the *gasp!* unwashed masses, whom they don't consider rational human beings, but rather as a valuable resource to be exploited to the highest degree.

Re:I download TV shows

[geoffspear]

Copyright owners have the exclusive right to distribute thier works. It's illegal to distribute them without permission, regardless of arguments that the end user could have gotten the work from the owner or his licensee for free.

The fact that you can check a book out from the library does not give me the right to print copies of that book and distribute them for free.

Re:I download TV shows

[DarkEdgeX]

Then explain time shifting to me then and how that reconciles with what you've just said. If I videotape (or DVR or in other way capture) an over the air network TV show while my wife is at work, then show it to her when she gets home, am I not breaking the law by your strict interpretation?

The SCOTUS didn't seem to think so.

Re:I download TV shows

[Knuckles]

Exactly. I download US tv shows because it is simply not possible to otherwise see them in my part of europe (or only in a crap version dubbed in the local language). Precious few are available on DVD in video stores (mostly limited to Sex&City, 6 Feet Under, and Friends). Some can't even be bought on DVD, and if so, only for outrageous prices.
I don't see how a US broadcaster can claim any lost revenue.

And this is just a rather bad example. What about the huge numbers of migrant workers in Europe? How is a Portuguese guy working in Finland supposed to keep in touch with pop culture/language at home? If he can't download, he'll have friends encode and burn the shows.

Re:I download TV shows

[Mr. Slippery]

Because its not convienent for you to get TV legally, that makes it alright to break the law right?

When a law is bad, yes, it's ethically ok to break it. Certainly when a law is in itself illegal (and many copyright laws go well beyond Congress's enumerated power to provide copyright to authors for a limited time), it's ethically ok to break it.

Everyone breaks laws, let's not pretend otherwise. Have a beer before you were 21? Report that $20 Grandma gave you on your taxes? Drive 60 mph in a 55mph zone? Welcome to the vast criminal underground.

Re:I download TV shows

[Mr. Slippery]

It's illegal to distribute them without permission

Except for "fair use".

Re:I download TV shows

[SQLz]

Your telling me you never rolled a stop sign? You've never gone 5mph over the speed limit? You never drank a beer under age or smoked pot? Please.

I can pick up Friends re-runs with an antenna, why not with the internet?

Re:I download TV shows

[sgant]

OK, before everyone starts going into LA LA land with the "it's not convenient for me to pay my electric bill so I'll just kill everyone at the electric company" non-sense I need to remind you all these are TV shows that the networks give away, for free, over the airwaves. They don't even know who you are anyway...you're not signed up for a service to receive these broadcasts...you don't have to sign a contract nor contact the FCC that you're going to receive these shows. Turn on a TV and they're there.

Sheesh, I can't stand when people start throwing out wild statements like this guy. You KNOW this is not the same thing as car theft. Nor is it murder, nor is it anything. This isn't an MP3 download, this isn't a movie download where real money is being lost...it's the download of something that's given away. You pay for it by watching the commercials...which I gladly do. So, who's being hurt here? Who's out of a job or not making a buck because of this?

Re:I download TV shows

[nickname225]

The networks can't offer torrents directly from their web sites - because it would violate their contracts with the local affiliates. Under your plan - the networks get ad revenue but the local stations don't. It may someday come to that - but not until the complex contractual relationships are worked out to ensure that all the stakeholders get a piece of the pie

Re:I download TV shows

[geoffspear]

Sony v. Universal City Studios, if you'd RTFSCOTUSO, states that "Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home" is non-infringing. Distributing the recordings outside the home is much different, and hasn't been found by any court that I know of to be fair use. If you can cite case law stating otherwise, do so.

Re:I download TV shows

[katenysh]

In that case couldn't the networks create their own sharing sites of good quality and get paid for the ads like the rest of us do?. What's the difference if you see the ad during the show or while getting to the show download from the network's website? As long as they get paid is shouldn't be a problem. Come on, I can't believe that the only people that can't make money online are the ones who make it their business to make money any way possible :-)

Re:I download TV shows

[ifwm]

"Certainly when a law is in itself illegal (and many copyright laws go well beyond Congress's enumerated power to provide copyright to authors for a limited time), it's ethically ok to break it."

Agreed. However, the laws you speak of aren't illegal yet. Just disagreeing with them and insisting they are illegal isn't enough, you have to get the Supreme Court to agree with you. Until they do, you're wrong, and copyright law sticks. Now, as to the spirit of the law, you're probably right, but that's irrelevant.

As to what this means ethically, it means you are breaking the law (does best Beavis and Butthead impersonation). Justify it to yourself how you want, but the "illegal" laws you speak of ARE NOT illegal until declared to be. Seeking cover by claiming to be a dissident doesn't cut it.

Re:I download TV shows

[DemingBuiltMyHotRod]

This is a tired argument; copying content neither destroys the essence of the original nor lessens the motivation of an artist to create additional content. Witness the number of "starving artists," people who perform at the community level not for millions, but for the love of entertaining. Part of every dollar that goes to a media conglomerate comes out of their pocket.

More importantly consider that there was a vital entertainment industry well before the days of recorded entertainment - or profit from recorded entertainment.

The very existence of millionaire TV, Movie, and Record execs and stars, indicates that our copyright laws are overly stringent. These people would perform the same work for less. To the extent that they are being overpaid because of their monopoly on content, the public domain ( your birthright as a human being ) is being pillaged for the benefit of the few.

Re:I download TV shows

[JaxGator75]

OR...

We could just do as we damn-well please and they can cram 100% of their rapidly-decomposing pie right up their down stroke.

I hope "they" continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to fight a concept. Throw good money after the bad! I've given up hope for the current situation and only do what serves MY best interest(s) anymore. I refuse to be the last person in America to figure this out...

/RIP common good

Re:I download TV shows

[XMyth]

My argument was merely that the two* are similar. His above reply disputed that similarity. You're putting words into my mouth on the other hand.

* The two being 1) Downloading (free/pirated) TV shows because he doesn't want to pay for lots of Cable TV he isn't going to watch. 2) Downloading (free/pirated) music because he doesn't want to buy the whole cd.

Re:I download TV shows

[crizh]

dl'ing TV is, like DeCSS, an artefact of monopoly abuse.

I watched the latest ep of SG1 on the telly last night and thousands of Americans dl'd it for free, illegally today.

And yet on Friday(?) they'll all be watching the latest ep of Atlantis that I will have to dl if I want to watch it this year.

That would be fine if this was 1984 but there no longer is any sort of real technological barrier to simulcasting shows globally.

The only reason for witholding a show from a market is to create demand. If no market gets all the shows first then every market is paying a scarcity premium.

Most of the world is being denied the opportunity to fairly purchase a product that is available but that the distributors are witholding to force us to pay more.

That sort of price fixing/manipulation is the reason for anti-competition legislation.

If I dl the latest ep's of Atlantis, which will air on Sky in January, I will be viewing material I have already paid the distributor to watch.

To my mind that is just time-shifting. True, in the opposite direction than is usual, but so what?

Technically illegal but then so is the monopolistic behaviour that makes it necessary.

Re:I download TV shows

[Mr. Slippery]

Just disagreeing with them and insisting they are illegal isn't enough, you have to get the Supreme Court to agree with you.

No, a law is unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) in and of itself, not because the Black Riders say yea or nea. If Congress passed a law making Fundamentalist Zoroastrianism the state religion and the Supremes okayed it, it would still be a violation of Amendment I. Bad calls by umpires don't change the rules or the facts of the game.

As to what this means ethically, it means you are breaking the law

Under any rational system of ethics, institutionalised societal norms - i.e., laws - have no bearing on what is or is not ethical. Congress doesn't determine what is right and what is wrong, it determines only who the state will point guns at.

Re:I download TV shows

[shotfeel]

This is about control over what you watch and how you watch it.

Which, IMO, is what the push for new legistation and DRM is all about. They're not worried about the money they're losing to infringement, they're worried about the money they could be making if they could control every viewing of all media -and they could charge for it every time.

Re:I download TV shows

[Snaller]

but again, this is different. These are broadcast TV shows that are going out over the airwaves anyway.

Not different in the eyes of the law. Don't like it? Vote for some other politicians.

Re:I download TV shows

[NDPTAL85]

I can honestly say I've never done any of those things and of course you can honestly choose not to believe me. But I would caution you not to want to group everyone in unlawful behaviour so that you feel better about your own lawbreaking history.

Why not the internet? Because it is not yet legal for you to do so. Why is that not good enough for you?

Re:I download TV shows

[ifwm]

"No, a law is unconstitutional..."

No. The constitution is a living document open to continuous interpretation. There are NO absolutes. The interpreters of the Constitution decide what's illegal, sorry, rail against it, but the fact that you disagree doesn't make you right. In fact you're completely wrong. Slavery was legal, then it was illegal. The Constitution didn't decide that, the court did. The Constitution is a guiding document, not dogma.

Re:I download TV shows

[Mr. Slippery]

Slavery was legal, then it was illegal. The Constitution didn't decide that, the court did.

Uh, no. The courts did not decide that slavery was illegal. The Constitution was modified to make slavery illegal - Amendment XIII: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States..."

I'm sorry, but you really need to educate yourself not only about the mechanism of constitutional government but about the history of the United States. (I'm assuming you live here.)

There are NO absolutes....The Constitution is a guiding document, not dogma.

There are plenty of absolutes in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and so on. Perhaps the most important one states that the Constitution is not a guiding document but "the supreme Law of the Land".

The fact that federal and state governments routinely ignore the supreme law of the land doesn't mean that their actions are legal, any more than the fact that we all drive 65mph in a 55mph zone makes that legal.

I repeat my eariler example: if Congress passed a law making Fundamentalist Zoroastrianism the state religion and the Supremes okayed it, it would still be a violation of Amendment I. Do you claim otherwise?

Re:I download TV shows

[ifwm]

"There are plenty of absolutes in the Constitution"

Listen, this is the last time I'll banter with you. So pay attention. All the examples you cited are only WORDS ON A PIECE OF PAPER until precedent is set. Last time I checked, JUDGES set precedent, not pieces of paper.

"I repeat my eariler example: if Congress passed a law making Fundamentalist Zoroastrianism the state religion and the Supremes okayed it, it would still be a violation of Amendment I"

So what? That doesn't make it ILLEGAL. It makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL, which isn't the same thing. More importantly, if you had ever had experience with law (you haven't I can tell) you would realize that Judges decide what is constitutional as well. No absolutes, because every single word in the constitution is open to judicial interpretation. Now explain to me how something can be absolute and open to interpretation at the same time.

"The courts did not decide that slavery was illegal"

Never said they did. YOU said that in attempt to act as though you knew something about the subject. But if you really knew anything, you would understand that the 13th was necessary because THE COURTS would not uphold protections granted in the 5th. Specifically

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

In the future, before you suggest someone educate themselves, you should know what you're talking about.

One last thing, I DO know what I'm talking about, I'm more well read on the subject than you, and I'm right. Stop being such a snarky little prick when you think you know something, I'm sure people will like you more.

Re:I download TV shows

[Mr. Slippery]

JUDGES set precedent, not pieces of paper.

Precedent does not effect whether something is or is not illegal. Yes, as a matter of current practice in our legal system, judges consult (and are in generally foolishly bound by) precedent in their decisions, but laws are nothing but words on pieces of paper. Laws are created by the legislature, not the judiciary. C'mon, this is middle-school stuff.

So what? That doesn't make it ILLEGAL. It makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL, which isn't the same thing.

As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional is a form of illegal.

Judges decide what is constitutional as well.

This is the error in which you persist. De facto, yes, if the judge says it's constitutional, the executive will enforce it, but that doesn't change the constitutional or unconstitutional nature of the law.

I ask you a third time: if Congress passes and the courts ok a law establishing a state religion, is it or is it not Constitutional? Of course it's not, it's a violation of Amendment I, the illiteracy of the court doesn't change that.

Now explain to me how something can be absolute and open to interpretation at the same time.

The Constitution is, in some parts, absolute. Certainly there are vague areas - what exactly are the bounds of regulating interstate commerce, for example - but there are also clear absolute elements ("shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", "supreme law of the land").

The actions of the state are based on (often illiterate, biased, and ideologically motivated) interpretation of judges, but that doesn't change the nature of the document - any more than a bad call by a baseball umpire changes what actions are or are not legal in that game. "The courts did not decide that slavery was illegal" Never said they did. YOU said that

You are confused. Perhaps you are getting threads mixed up. I did not even mention slavery. You introduced slavery into the thread with your (incorrect) assertion that slavery was made illegal by the courts.

Please, we can all read the whole thread here - if you can't even remember what arguments you made, how are we supposed to take anything you say seriously? (Maybe we shouldn't, and this is some sort of elaborate troll...)

Re:I download TV shows

[ifwm]

I love it. I've never seen anyone backpedal so fast in my life.

"unconstitutional is a form of illegal" hehe nice. Couldn't take it back so you equivocate huh?

"The Constitution is, in some parts, absolute"

No, it's not, and insisting it is doesn't help you look like less of an idiot. NO part of the constitution is immutable, including the 1st. You know fire in a crowded theatre and all that. By the way I love that. "Um, well, you see, uh, it is and is isn't". Sounds like someone is trying to play both sides (poorly).

"You introduced slavery into the thread with your (correct) assertion that slavery was made illegal by the courts"

You can claim all you want that the courts didn't decide this, but you need to read a history book. The amendment wasn't law until it was declared constitutional by... the US Supreme Court.

Now, I'm going to ask you a question (yes, i'm a sadist I know). What about separate but equal? It was constitutional, then it wasn't. Which time was the right choice? The constitution NEVER changed, but was interpreted two different ways, and both times the decisions were LAW.

Regardless of your reverence for the constitution, it is only a guiding document, not a hard and fast set of rules. You fundamental inability to grasp that concept leaves us at an impasse.

I'll simply have to wait for you to get smarter (long wait I'm sure).

Oh by the way, that snarkiness I was talking about, it's still there. You're too poorly educated to have a serious discussion with. Is someone smarter around that could ghost your posts for you?

Oh right, shitty attitude = no friends. Sorry, just do the best you can with your limited capabilities.

Re:I download TV shows

[Mr. Slippery]

"unconstitutional is a form of illegal" hehe nice. Couldn't take it back so you equivocate huh?

I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but what the hell:

There is nothing at all equivocable about my statement. Let me lay it out for you as simply as I can:

• The Constitution is a law.
• "Unconstitutional" means "in violation of the Constitution".
• By our first premise, that which is in violation of the Constitution is in violation of a law.
• That which is in violation of a law is "illegal".
• Therefore, that which is in violation of the Constitution is illegal.
• Therefor that which is unconstitutional is illegal. Or, "unconstitutional" is a form of, or is a subset of, "illegal".

Now, I'm going to ask you a question (yes, i'm a sadist I know).

I notice you never answered mine...apparently you do belive that if Congress established a state religion and the courts did not object, this would be constitutional, Amendment I notwithstanding?

What about separate but equal? It was constitutional, then it wasn't.

No, "separate but equal" (as it was practiced) was a violation of Amendment XIV. After the passage of that Amendment it was never constitutional, the illiteracy of some courts not withstanding.

The constitution NEVER changed, but was interpreted two different ways, and both times the decisions were LAW.

Courts do not make law. I'm very sorry that you do not seem to understand this basic point.

Yes, the Constitution was interpreted two different ways at two different times. This happens to most laws are some point, but laws don't change when judges fail to comprehend them.

Regardless of your reverence for the constitution, it is only a guiding document, not a hard and fast set of rules

Reverence? No, I just belive that if the state expects us to follow the law it ought to set a better example.

But your assertation about the nature of the Constitution as a mere "guiding document" is simply not correct. The Constitution of the United State is the supreme law of the land, and the source of all legal power for the federal government. Any government action outside of its scope - and there is plenty - is force, not law, whether those actions are approved by courts or not. Some of those illegal actions may be good, some of them may be bad - just like violations of lesser laws.

And as for your ad homium attacks - grow up, bud.

Re:I download TV shows

[ifwm]

"And as for your ad homium attacks"

Not only are you too stupid to read a book about constitutional law (a subject which clearly baffles you) but you can't even spell ad hominem.

And telling me to grow up IS an ad hominem attack. So you're a liar, a moron, and a hypocrite. I could have guessed that though.

Re:I download TV shows

[SQLz]

Uhh, yeah...I'm so ashamed.

The point is my post was that many people, and I'm sure even you, break the law on a constant basis without even knowing it. There are laws hundreds of years old still on the books that basically outlaw breathing. I mean, it wasn't till a couple years ago that Christmas became legal again in Virginia because of a law made in the 1800s.

Find a way to sue the the advertisers

[ollybee]

Advertisments for very well known companies are appearing on the biggest torrent sites. The money from these companies is the reason why downloading movies is easy enough to become mainstream. Without this money casual users may well be put off, as the process of finding torrents would become more obviously illegal and more difficult.

Re:Find a way to sue the the advertisers

[forgoil]

Willfully aiding torrentists... Off to Cuba with them, good bye...

Days?

[DarkEdgeX]

Try hours. I can pull down a DVDR on this shitty DSL connection of mine in 12-16 hours via BitTorrent.

Re:Days?

[DarkEdgeX]

You have bandwidth limited DSL then. Get a better ISP.

Agreed on the older movies, but if you're talking unreleased or recent releases then it's significantly faster just to get it online (and if the movie isn't even out on DVD, sometimes it's the only way to get it short of a trip to your local cinema).

Re:Days?

[DarkEdgeX]

Because the phone company is like the water company or the electric company. Sure they're also corrupt on occasion, but not nearly as much as the record companies or movie companies.

Few major details

[Jarnis]

- Finreactor (the finnish siten in question) admins solicted for 'donations' - in other words, took money for access to torrent trackers. Also the tracker required registration, and kept 'ratios' for each user. Heck, the *bank account number* of the site was in plain view asking for donations directly to the bank account of the admins. In other words, the activity was very very stupid.

- By Finnish law, the crime becomes 'tekijänoikeusrikos' instead of 'rikkomus' when money is involved. The difference is that for the lesser crime, maximum penalty is just fines - and I doubt police could even get search warrants for the lesser offense.

But in this case since money is involved, and prosecution will claim that there was a goal for financial gain, and it becomes a bigger crime (max 2 years in the can). And suddenly it's easy for the police to get all the details they need from ISPs & search warrants for the busts.

So in other words: Taking money (even if it's just 'donations' to cover tracker bandwidth) is a nice way to get your ass in jail.

The case does have few murky details - they cannot prosecute everyone (over 10000 users supposedly), and distributing the .torrents themselves is a gray area thing. Admins definitely facilitated copyright violations, but... how illegal that is? Can they be strung up for what their users did? It's a test case for P2P in Finland. I think the fact that the admins took money for access to the site will nail their asses for *something*, but the rest is still up in the air.

Re:Few major details

[Anonymous Coward]

Donations were not required in order to get access. It was complitely voluntary. And I would guess the value of the donations to be neglible.

I fail to see how the site itself was illegal, there is no law in Finland against providing links to "illegal" material, only distributing it is illegal.

My guess is that the biggest distributors will be fined and that's all.

And BTW, I haven't seen any arrests mentioned anywhere in local media. Where did that "fact" come from?

Re:Few major details

[Jarnis]

True, no arrests. Only search & seizure of some computer hardware.

And yes, the donations were voluntary. However, you supposedly got benefits from donating. So, indirectly, that would mean that they took money for warez. Or more exactly, gained money from operating a warez-related site. Heck, the way finnish law in question was written, if you run a warez site and run banner ads (that bring you revenue), that alone can land your ass in the can if the prosecutor claims you operated the site with the intent to profit (via running banner ads). It doesn't matter if you in the end actually profited anything. And in this case supposedly the money went to cover costs of the hosting of the site, so I think they can make the leap and charge the admins for intent to profit from the operation.

I'm quite sure the finer points of that will be discussed in court in time. However, the basic problem was - money played part, and that makes it a much more serious crime in Finland.

Re:Few major details

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Knowing the way lawyers work, this loophole is already plugged, but just in case... what if:

What if the site needing money for bandwidth/whatever just had a link to another site that sold regular stuff for insanely high prices? Behind the scenes the profit from the insanely high prices would pay the bandwidth costs on the original site.

Kind of the way public radio and other non-profits do charity drives in the USA, if you are familiar with that paradigm.

Re:Few major details

[Bishop]

If there was a link to a site with high priced items then the prosecution would have to show that the warez and high priced items were connected. This is not trivial, but it is not that difficult either. If the warez downloader can figure out the connection then a judge or jury can figure it out too.

Alone a similar line, the profit probably does not need to be money. I am not familliar with the exact wording of Finnish law, but in most modern legal systems profit includes exchange of goods and trade (services). If you think about it, this includes upload/download ratios that reward (profit) users who upload more. Infact it could be argued that the administrators of any torrent tracking site "profit" from the site as it gives the administrators easy access to a vast quantity of warez (and similar). The cost of bandwidth and providing access to others is simply the cost of doing bussines.

Re:Few major details

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Regarding profit - even in the USA, it wasn't until just a few years ago that sharing without the exchange of money was OK. Google on "David LaMacchia" a student at MIT who ran a HUGE warez ftp site. He did not charge any money for access, but (I think) he did have U/D ratios. He was arrested and indicted for wire fraud, but all charges were thrown out because we was not doing it for monetary compensation.

A year or two later, congress passed a law (I *think* it was part of the DMCA) that broadened the definition of compensation to include just about anything, even false promises. So, maybe an Ass. of America slipped something into Finland's laws, or maybe you've still got the same kind of definitions we recently had.

Re:Few major details

[Jarnis]

Our law currently puts the line at 'goal of financial gain'.

Doesn't matter if one actually gained something, but if something is done with an expectation of getting financial gain out of it, then it's a much more serious crime.

Asking for donations alone might be very borderline, but in this case those donations also gave you perks (I *think* better status as a downloader even if you just leeched. not sure, wasn't an user. based on hearsay).

In which case prosecuters can easily spin it as at a thinly veiled attempt to hide 'pay us for (more / easier to get) warez' deal, which definitely means that the admins had in mind a goal of financial gain. Doesn't matter where the money was supposed to be used (hosting fees). Admins got money. 'Financial Gain'. Tough.

There is actually a test case from way back (the time of BBSes. You know - modems - 14.4K HST tech) where a BBS was selling 'bytes' (pay money, get to leech X bytes of latest warez). I don't have idea of the exact resolution of the case, but I do know the sysop of that BBS at least ended up paying sizeable reparations to the companies who sued him (Adobe, MS, Autodesk etc.. the usual BSA members). I don't think he ended up in the jail, but it sure made a huge hole in his pocket. And that case was clearly 'with goal of financial gain'.

It should also be noted that nobody as far as I know has been prosecuted in Finland for piracy unless;
- There is selling / money involved (for example, selling bootleg CDs/DVDs)
or
- Pirated software was used by a company for business use (Say, a company using pirated AutoCAD to save money)

Re:Few major details

[Jarnis]

Well, I think the point is that they *knowingly* facilitated copyright infringement. They actively moderated the site. 'Common carrier'-style defenses would then be out of the window.

But even that should be a crime comparable to running a red light. However, once money becomes part of the equation, things change.

Re:Few major details

[Jarnis]

Thankfully in Finland the law is different. Copyright infringement without a goal of financial gain would be punishable by fines. Of course you still may end up having to pay to the copyright holders, but even that is bit iffy - if there was no financial gain, it's hard to quantify the neccessary reparations. In Finland you just can't sue for A BILLION DOLLARS because some teen copied your crappy software to 10000 users. Yes, the teen would pay, but the sums would probably be sane (say, 10000 euros)

Then again since no-gain infringement is only punishable by fines, the police can't get search warrants based on that. Hence basically 'copying for your own use' (aka 'leeching') is almost not a crime over here, unless you setup a laptop warez station on the steps of the police station and offer free copies to passerbys. Tho even then it's more likely the police would just kick you off the steps for bothering people.

Downloading is not free.

[Yartrebo]

According to my cost accounting, a downloaded movie costs about $1. It's $.20 for depreciation and electricity for your computer (I live in a place with $.18/kwh electricity), $.40 for your bandwidth, and $.40 for a CDR.

Re:Downloading is not free.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've made a few really bad assumptions there though. The worst is that you assume all of the movies people download are burned to a CD-R (and who still pays 40 cents each for those anyway???), that is simply WRONG. Second is that you assume the computer wouldn't be on or in use were you not downloading a movie, that is often wrong as well. And finally you assume that the only reason the person has a net connection is to download movies. I have DSL and DON'T download movies, so if I downloaded a movie next month will by bill go up by 40 cents? According to your math it does. The way my (and most other nerds) PCs are setup, I could download movies now for very nearly free other than my own time. My PC is already on 24/7 so electricity and depreciation is a non-issue, I pay by the month for DSL, and I don't even HAVE a DVD-player so I wouldn't burn them to disk when I could just watch them the same way I watch DVDs (through my PC) and I very rarely watch a movie more than once unless it is a classic and most people buy those on DVD anyway...even those who download movies.

Re:Downloading is not free.

[Zach Garner]

After thanksgiving, I got 100 CD-Rs for free. I didn't even have to pay for the stamp for the rebate since I was able to submit it on the web.

So the cost, based on your numbers is $0.20 + $0.40 = $0.60. Which is less than the cost per video via netflix from the parent poster.

I would also question both of your other numbers. I would pay for a fast connection, regardless of downloading movies (which I don't, by the way, I'm willing to go see a movie in the theater if its good, which is maybe a few times a year).

Remember their true goals

[goneutt]

I know that the boards of the media companies get group chubbies when ever someone suggest systems where they don't have to produce products, hence the cooperation with iTunes.
They dream of the day when no one owns physical media, but instead pays a per use fee to listen or view media.

Also, as long as I can't rent Troma movies at BlockBuster I'm gonna find them on P2P networks. Oh, and if it's not utter garbage I wind up buying them.

Mistranslation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Police in Finland raided the operation of a popular Bit Torrent site and arrested 34 people, 30 of which were volunteers who helped moderate the site.
Register or someone else mistranslated original text. They are suspecting 4 admins plus 30 "powerusers", nobody has been arrested yet. Yesterday police raided admins' houses and seized their computers.

Apparently putting "donations" button to tracker-page got them badly screwed, since now they're were getting direct or indirect monetary benefit for running tracker (which had lot of illegal files).

More or less luckily TPB has already promised to lend it's tracker for Finnish warezors;D

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[neoform]

yeah, cause no one here is involved with open source.

incase you haven't noticed code can/is considered to be 'intellectual property'. yet for some reason so many people don't love those laws and so something weird, they *give the code away for free*.. how strange..

Re:What a haul...

[OldeTimeGeek]

I always thought something was worth whatever you actually paid for it. These downloaders were paying zero

Using the same logic that you just did, there's nothing inherently wrong with stealing anything. You didn't pay for it, so it has no value...

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[DarkEdgeX]

Gimme a break. I don't see how you can say in one breath that these P2P laws are "stupid" while claiming that enforcement of said laws is "good". When is it ever good to enforce stupid laws?

If anything, people using these sites are engaging in the most peaceful form of resistance I can imagine-- nobody is getting physically harmed by someone downloading a movie or an MP3. Nobody is being threatened with a weapon. Nobody is being deprived of physical property.

Ghandi would be proud.

Ah, but they DID have the copyrighted content

[hacker]

One argument I see again and again with this, is that "they never possessed the original copyrighted materials, only the torrent file", but that isn't entirely true.

In order to create the .torrent file, you have to have the full original source material. Someone had the original source material (movie, dvd, software, game, etc.) and created the .torrent file from that source material. This person then must have given that .torrent file to the tracker server itself (or the person who created the .torrent is running the tracker themselves).

In fact, since the .torrent file has to directly contain the URL of the tracker itself, you can't simply "upload" the .torrent to a tracker and have it function, unless you know the exact tracker URL that server uses to host its torrent files. If you want to put a .torrent on 10 trackers, you have to create 10 separate .torrent files. You can't reuse the same .torrent file for all 10 trackers.

This means the tracker operator and the people providing torrents are collaborating in some way, or the tracker is publishing its tracker URL to facilitate people creating torrent files for it, from copyrighted source materials.

Its a little greyer than originally thought.

Re:Ah, but they DID have the copyrighted content

[solidox]

You are not quite right.
The tracker does not need the .torrent, nor does it need to know anything about the contents of a torrent.
All the tracker does is keep a list of ips that are associated with an infohash.

Re:Ah, but they DID have the copyrighted content

[andrewm]

In fact, since the .torrent file has to directly contain the URL of the tracker itself, you can't simply "upload" the .torrent to a tracker and have it function, unless you know the exact tracker URL that server uses to host its torrent files. If you want to put a .torrent on 10 trackers, you have to create 10 separate .torrent files. You can't reuse the same .torrent file for all 10 trackers.

You are wrong.

I take it you've never heard of multi-tracker torrent files.

Using "announce-list" is an extension to the reference code's "announce" format. One can specify alternate trackers, as well as a priority.

It is in such wide use that I can't imagine anything other than the Python reference code that doesn't support it.

Re:Ah, but they DID have the copyrighted content

[matth1jd]

Most of the torrent sites I know of (not linking to any of them), simply list (publish) the address of the tracker or trackers, and anyone is free to upload a torrent to that tracker.
I don't see how this is any greyer than before, you still have a server that is simply hosting torrents, no copyrighted material is actually contained on the tracker.

I wouldn't so much say the the creators of torrents and tracker operators are collaborating. IANAL but I would image if any legal argument could be posed it would be that trackers facilitate the spread of copyrighted material. Which I would assume would hold up in court since a tracker facilitates file transfers in BT.

--J

Re:Ah, but they DID have the copyrighted content

[BlacKat]

Try looking at Suprnova or any of the other large trackers, there are a ton of .torrents using multi-trackers available.

Just because you can't find any does not mean they don't exist. ;)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:What a haul...

[Anonymous Coward]

Love this quote.

"Police say the site had 10,000 users, all Finnish, who downloaded illegally-copied content worth millions of euros. The site featured 6000 torrents, including film, videos, music and games."

I always thought something was worth whatever you actually paid for it. These downloaders were paying zero.

So if I steal a TV and thus pay nothing for it, no one loses out? Get it right. I know what you're trying to say - that technically no money has been lost - but you didn't express it will

The problem isn't that people have stolen the record industry out of $15 worth of music, but that they have $15 worth of music that they didn't pay for. It's not like stealing a TV, which results in a store and company losing money. The nature of digital music means that it can be replicated at ~0 cost (excluding stupid things like the power used when your PC is doing the ripping and so on) so you're right to some extent that the record industry doesn't lose $15 of music, as nothing leaves their inventory. However, people do acquire things that they haven't paid for, which does strike me as wrong.

It's a difficult issue, because in many ways no one loses anything, but people certainly gain something. And, if extrapolated to a potential conclusion, people do lose out in the long run because if everyone got their music from P2P and didn't pay for it, and the record industry only sold the initial CD from which all rips were taken, then they would be losing out.

This is for the best, really

[Corellon Larethian]

It provides the proper de-centralizing stimulus.

What if George Washington had been captured and executed by the British? Was the Revolution de-centralized enough to survive his loss? Is America's democracy de-centralized enough to survive the poor quality of Diebolds voting machines?

Stuff like this will benefit change, not only in America, but in China and Iran, as well. In those countries, the kids in the universities might be apprehended and clubbed to death by the Moral Police, at any given minute. But with sufficient security and de-centralization, they can still communicate with the outside world. Enough to possibly, one day, bring decent living conditions to the culture of power which uses and discards people as you would a tool.

This is a good thing. Good changes have never come easy, or with a consensus.

I'm still waiting for Palladium. I think that will be one of the best changes, for the good of all Humanity.

Re:This is for the best, really

[CodeWanker]

Wow. Theft is equated to the American Revolution, and thieves equated to victims of Saudi Arabia's sharia enforcement thugs. If anyone ever needed an object lesson in the dangers of grossly inappropriate analogies, they need look no further.

What we are talking about here is THEFT. It doesn't matter if you shoplifted a DVD from Best Buy or download it. You're stealing. "Oh, these movies suck! I wouldn't pay for them!" Then DON'T WATCH THEM.

Illegally downloading copyrighted materials discourages the creation of high-quality materials. It reduces the overall value of the knowledge base our society can develop and provide access to. If that access has a fee, then pay it. Or don't access it.

Slashdot's comment boards would be a WHOLE lot better if each poster was accurately marked with age, employment status, and whether or not the poster is living with his parents.

Re:This is for the best, really

[a24061]

...If anyone ever needed an object lesson in the dangers of grossly inappropriate analogies, they need look no further.

I agree with you there. But...

What we are talking about here is THEFT.

No. We are talking about copyright infringement, which---despite publishers' propaganda---is not even remotely the same thing. Copyright infringement ought to be a purely civil (not criminal) matter.

Illegally downloading copyrighted materials discourages the creation of high-quality materials. It reduces the overall value of the knowledge base our society can develop and provide access to.

Maybe, maybe not. The privilege (not right) of copyright was created to encourage authorship, but it is not necessary for high-quality works to exist, as demonstrated by all of human culture from prehistory until 200--300 years ago.

Slashdot's comment boards would be a WHOLE lot better if each poster was accurately marked with age, employment status, and whether or not the poster is living with his parents.

35, yes, no.

Re:This is for the best, really

[dknight]

22, not living with parents (I'm in a completely different state, in fact), and I make over $40k/yr.

I own over 300 DVDs.

and so, I say to you, get off your high horse.
I download from time to time, but I see more movies in the theater and buy more DVDs than any 5 people I know combined. Do I always buy/go see what I download? Hell no. Sometimes the movies suck. But I do if they're worth it.

Re:This is for the best, really

[CodeWanker]

Taking something that without paying for it is theft. If it's copyright infringement in addition to theft, then you've got a 2fer. If I create a work, and explicitly provide access to it for a fee, and you choose to access the work without paying it, you're stealing. It's not an issue of law, it's an issue of right and wrong.

Re:This is for the best, really

[MikeBabcock]

I'm 27, married, with a child, own a $1000+ stereo system and make similar cash to the previous poster. I download movies before they're available on DVD then buy them if I like them. Wait, you want me to see if I like the movie by paying $10 to go to the theatre?

Re:This is for the best, really

[Wylfing]

Wow. Theft is equated to the American Revolution, and thieves equated to victims of Saudi Arabia's sharia enforcement thugs. If anyone ever needed an object lesson in the dangers of grossly inappropriate analogies, they need look no further.

Really? I think it's you who is misinformed. The American revolutionaries were most definitely considered thieves and criminals by the British Empire.

Re:This is for the best, really

[kryptkpr]

"Copyright Infringement" is an artifical construct. Copyright was originally created to give the original author the opportunity to benifit from their work, before releasing it to the public domain in 15 years time to benifit everyone, not just the person who created it.

The current legislated "Life+70" essentially guarantees that you will not see any of the currenttly available content enter the public domain within your lifetime.

Thus, the "benifit everyone" part of Copyright has been lost. And if it doesn't benifit everyone, then you have to ask who does it really benifit?

I agree with you, it's an issue of right and wrong. And Copyright is wrong.

Re:This is for the best, really

[Carrot007]

as no ones done if coherently yet...

What we are talking about here is THEFT. It doesn't matter if you shoplifted a DVD from Best Buy or download it. You're stealing. "Oh, these movies suck! I wouldn't pay for them!" Then DON'T WATCH THEM.

Sorry, I'm afraid it does. Theft is theft. Copright infringement is copyright infringement that's why we have different words for them you know.

Maybe you need a dictionary... or a clue stick.

Re:This is for the best, really

[timster]

So since it's not an issue of law, assume that in your scenario, the legal copyright expires and the work reverts to the public domain. Even if you are still "explicitly providing access to the work for a fee", it would then be legal for me to create copies and distribute them. Is it still wrong?

Perhaps the idea of copyright expiration is a moral one. If so, what is the moral copyright expiration date (which of course is independent from the legal one?)

This could be considered a moot argument since copyright currently extends beyond the life of the creator, but this was not always the case.

Re:This is for the best, really

[Miaowara_Tomokato]

Slashdot's comment boards would be a WHOLE lot better if each poster was accurately marked with age, employment status, and whether or not the poster is living with his parents.

In order to make it easier for a close-minded elitist to discriminate against the person or make ad hominem attacks rather than have a reasoned debate concerning ideas?

Seriously. All that would do is make it easier to seek out people that are more likely to agree with you. It would have the benefit of you not having to read things that you might not agree with. Which is really what it looks like you're asking for. And that does not belong on any intelligent forum.

Re:This is for the best, really

[j-turkey]

"Copyright Infringement" is an artifical construct.

Oh please, ownership itself is an artificial construct. If you're going to pass copyright off as bullshit, then you need to pass ownership of physical goods off as an artificial construct. Our entire system of laws is based around artificial constructs. For example, "rights" are an artificial construct.

That being said, I probably agree that the extension of copyrights is bullshit, and are certainly not within the spirit of the original law -- but you are not taking into account that the spirit of a law can change as we learn how it's being applied, understood, and used. It can also change as circumstances around it change (such as types of media, and technology). This has likely happened with every law...ever.

Copyright law benefits the copyright owners. That's abundantly clear. However, in the United States, commerce benefits us all. There is definitely room for both a copyright/copyleft model in the marketplace, as well as the public domain. Logicly, the point of extending copyrights was to keep those works in the marketplace -- it creates jobs and tax revenues and allows for government funded infrastructure.

Re:This is for the best, really

[kryptkpr]

If you're going to pass copyright off as bullshit, then you need to pass ownership of physical goods off as an artificial construct.

Hmm.. I don't think there's anything artifical about ownership of physical things. People have things that they consider theirs, and if anyone challenges them then they will fight for it. That's about as natural as it gets..

Our entire system of laws is based around artificial constructs. For example, "rights" are an artificial construct.

Ah, yes. I completely agree with you. Some people way back when decided that hey, lets not go around fighting with each other, and instead agree on some things that we all shouldn't do! Rights are just what we came up with,as a list of things that you shouldn't do to someone..

Copyright law benefits the copyright owners. That's abundantly clear. However, in the United States, commerce benefits us all.

Well.. to recap, it was Disney that lobbied to have the copyrights extended as far as it has been. Disney based a large portion of their work on works from the Public Domain, and then lobbied to have it killed.

Logicly, the point of extending copyrights was to keep those works in the marketplace -- it creates jobs and tax revenues and allows for government funded infrastructure.

Was it? Really? Or was it to prevent those ideas from becoming free, as they should have been?

Re:This is for the best, really

[j-turkey]

Was it? Really? Or was it to prevent those ideas from becoming free, as they should have been?

This is Steamboat Willie/Mickey Mouse that we're discussing, right? Well, I'm not all that upset for that not being in the public domain...but your point is taken. I guess it's not a perfect world. Like I said, I'm with you that the extensions are bullshit...but then again, the spirit of copyright law really has changed.

Re:This is for the best, really

[maximilln]

Oh please, ownership itself is an artificial construct. If you're going to pass copyright off as bullshit, then you need to pass ownership of physical goods off as an artificial construct. Our entire system of laws is based around artificial constructs. For example, "rights" are an artificial construct.

Get it straight: possession is 99% of ownership. I possess this movie, so I own it, I can copy it, I can rip it, I can play it, and I can share it.

How does one possess copyright? Under what authority is copyright granted? Constitutional authority only covers inventors and creators. Constitutional authority says nothing about the corporate entities who purchase the first copy of a work and mass produce it.

Re:This is for the best, really

[raile]

Wait, you want me to see if I like the movie by paying $10 to go to the theatre?

I know! And the nerve of those greedy grocery stores wanting you to wait and see if you like the food by paying for it first...

Re:This is for the best, really

[j-turkey]

Get it straight: possession is 99% of ownership. I possess this movie, so I own it, I can copy it, I can rip it, I can play it, and I can share it.

I'm not so sure about that. Copyright law definitely says you're wrong. You're just being idealitic...which is entirely impractical here. Try explaining this to any sane judge -- they'd likely call you something along the lines of a very clever dumbass (as they throw the book at you...you're not outsmarting anyone there, and they tend to dislike people who try).

How does one possess copyright? Under what authority is copyright granted? Constitutional authority only covers inventors and creators. Constitutional authority says nothing about the corporate entities who purchase the first copy of a work and mass produce it.

Our laws do not begin and end with the constitution. The federal government makes laws every day that don't touch the constitution (it's become necessary for reasons of interstate commerce and practicality, since it takes quite some time to pass a constitutional amendment...and there is noteworthy support in the Constitution [and widely discussed in the Federalist Papers] for the federal government making laws to support, and regulate interstate trade...it's been pretty abused, IMO...but copyright law is not one of those abuses.). Our society has decided to treat copyrights as commodities (and there is quite a bit of case law to support this), and laws have been formed around this, I'd say that makes it legit. People have bought and sold rights for years. It's not the first company to buy a copy who gets the rights. It's the first company who buys the rights who gets the rights. There's a huge difference. Come on...you know better than that.

Re:This is for the best, really

[maximilln]

Copyright law definitely says you're wrong. You're just being idealitic

Copyright law is a farce. It's a product of lobbyists. Call it idealism if you think that living in a police state is an acceptable alternative to idealism.

Our laws do not begin and end with the constitution

Yes, they do. The Constitution empowers the federal government. The government is free to ignore the Constitution, but then I don't want to hear any more bullsh_t about democracy, a republic, or anything but a carefully shrouded communist police state.

The federal government makes laws every day that don't touch the constitution

You're right. Every day they ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments with impunity. A few more years and the ACLU will be nothing but a coffee club for people who vaguely remember freedom, liberty, and the values that our soldiers have fought and died for over the last 200 years.

Re:This is for the best, really

[CommieOverlord]

What is neccessary for the creation of most art (eg. books, movies, music, visual arts) is some form of compensation. Producing art is time consuming and is often a full time task. People can't dedicate themselves to that task without being certain of their ability to feed and shelter themselves.

Copyright is currently the only thing that helps provide this protection to the artists' livelihoods; therefore it is necessary.

You are correct that things went relatively swimmingly before modern copyright laws. But that's because artists were virtually always employees or had a patron (and the employer/patron just wanted something nice not something to make money off). The artists had steady income. Fortunately the patronage system has gone the way of the dodo bird

Re:This is for the best, really

[Suicyco]

Ownership is absolutely an artificial construct.

If you purchase a television, you now "own" it. What does that mean? It means that you traded a tokenized piece of your value (money usually) given to you in trade for some other piece of value (usually work) all of which has been created by a convoluted economic system. Ownership is totally artificial. The only thing you OWN is your body and mind. Everything else is up to what your particular society deems to be yours, using whatever methodology that society uses to define ownership of property.

A television set is not "yours" in any real sense other than you have possession of it. However you may also have possession of a leased car, a rented movie, a library book, etc. You do not "own" these because you possess them, regardless if how somebody may "feel" about it. They only feel that way because they were told they could (about things they "own"). Only some form of contract states you "own" any particular piece of property, defined by your government, justice system and economic system. Hence, a totally artificial construct.

Re:This is for the best, really

[j-turkey]

Copyright law is a farce. It's a product of lobbyists. Call it idealism if you think that living in a police state is an acceptable alternative to idealism.

OK...I think that you need to take a civics course. Just about every law is a product of lobbyists in one sense or another. You are distorting how things really work.

Yes, they do. The Constitution empowers the federal government. The government is free to ignore the Constitution...Every day they ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments with impunity. A few more years and the ACLU will be nothing but a coffee club for people who vaguely remember freedom, liberty, and the values that our soldiers have fought and died for over the last 200 years.

I really don't think that you've done your homework on this. The a Commerce Clause in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) about exactly this. It has certainly been stretched out a little, and I wouldn't have a hard time finding abuses. But you are simply not being realistic about this. Just because there are abuses of this, does not mean that the whole thing is a farce. It also does not mean that copyrights have no place within the law. If I write a book, you'd better believe that I want some protection from you and your sense of entitlement to other people's creative works. I want to be able to sell it for whatever price I want. And I certianly want you to have the right to not own my book. More importantly, it's your right to write a creative work and release it to the public domain. I simply don't see a problem with that. Without copyrights, there would be no GPL. Frankly, I like the GPL.

Call it idealism if you think that living in a police state is an acceptable alternative to idealism.

We don't live in a police state. Go to a police state, then come back here and tell me that. I have no idea who you are, or anything about you, but it is becoming very clear that you have very little perspective. I just want to point this out as modern logic that just doesn't work: You're using an if !A then B logic. Like Bush's reply to criticism about Iraq...something like "I don't know any sane person who thinks that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power". That's an excellent example of if !A then B logic. If you don't agree with him, then you must think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. You are saying if !idealism then police state. I disagree. What about using a little pragmatism here?

Re:This is for the best, really

[Suicyco]

Communist police state, because we allow large private entities to possess things of an abstract nature? Isn't that an oxymoron?

So, if we ignore our constitution, that automatically equates to communism? In a communist system, there is no private entity that can "own" something like a copyright. The concept of private property is completely different.

Anyway, your total lack of political understanding of what you speak aside, "fascist police state" is probably more proper a term, and closer to reality.

Re:This is for the best, really

[maximilln]

Communist police state, because we allow large private entities

Since we know those private entities are owned by private citizens who, due to their ownership, often have very real and involved interests in politics... aren't you drawing delineations which don't really exist? It's all interconnected.

So, if we ignore our constitution, that automatically equates to communism?

If we ignored the constitution and had no government that would not be communism. However, if you model the function and structure of the current US gov't and compare it with the former USSR the resemblence is impeccable.

In a communist system, there is no private entity that can "own" something like a copyright

Enter reality: there are still private individuals, with private interests and personal agendas, in powerful oversight positions in a communist government.

Anyway, your total lack of political understanding of what you speak aside

Insults get you no where.

Re:This is for the best, really

[maximilln]

You are distorting how things really work.

Let's be perfectly honest, then. This is the way our system works,"You're the weak and I am the tyranny of evil men." Make all the pretty political speeches you want--our system is a cartel that is no different from any other third world gang of thugs except that ours has the biggest nukes on the planet.

It also does not mean that copyrights have no place within the law

Our current implementation of the concept of copyright has no Constitutional empowerment.

If I write a book, you'd better believe that I want some protection from you and your sense of entitlement to other people's creative works

Maybe your book sucks and nobody cares about it. So you form a cartel of book writers, get them all pumped up on this straw man of some nerd with a Xerox machine, and get them to march on Washington to place government a federal officer next to every Xerox machine in the nation. You know what? The cost of paying those federal officers far outweighs any benefit your book has. Protect your own book, or don't sell it on an open market full of disingenuous people. You're not furthering anything good by stealing my money to pay for a bloated program which isn't going to stop someone with a camera. Next you'll want to federally regulate the materials used in the production of cameras.

Since you're incapable of drawing a line anywhere you're incapable to speak on anything of "law". In your eyes, the law goes as far as you want it to when you want it to.

Without copyrights, there would be no GPL

Hardly. The GPL is GNUs way of saying,"Copyrights suck but, if we have to play this game, this is our stance on copyright--EVERYONE HAS IT. Just be nice and play fair." If there were no copyrights, GNU would still make software.

There is no legally empowered federal authority which can raid people's homes or serve court summons for the crime of "copyright infringement". Constitutionally, the copyright is preserved for the inventor or the creator. If BMG, or Elektra, or RCA wants to the buy the first copy, that's fine, but they can't (legally) sic the feds on me anymore than I can sic them on you. Cite all the court cases you want. The only you'll be citing are blatant examples of the true nature of our world: might makes right. Deal with it.

Re:This is for the best, really

[Suicyco]

If we ignored the constitution and had no government that would not be communism. However, if you model the function and structure of the current US gov't and compare it with the former USSR the resemblence is impeccable.

Ok, that makes some more sense, however the USSR was not communist. It was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. To be clear.

Enter reality: there are still private individuals, with private interests and personal agendas, in powerful oversight positions in a communist government.

In a socialist state, yes. True to the form "communism" has no central state, it is a collective with no center, a utopian society. Not that it is something actually workable in the current world, but thats how it is defined, at least thats how I understand it when I read Marx. Perhaps you got something else when you read his works.

Actually, if we had no government and no constitution, that would be closer to a communist society, but not quite.

The former USSR was more nationalist socialism, with a bit of democratic republic style government thrown in. After all, a democracy is simply the dictatorship of the majority.

Insults get you no where.

Wasn't meaning to insult so much as to point out that throwing around terms like that should imply you understand what they actually mean. I know its a good knee jerk catch all to say "communist police state" in good ol' merica, but it is not accurate. In fact, I don't think there has ever been any form of government similar to what is evolving in the US. Its some sort of capitalist neo-republic corporate hybrid state, with lip service paid to civic socialism. Rights and laws have little to do with people, and everything to do with huge centralized centers of corporate power. We have fought many wars in recent decades to further economic stability and expansion for that system. The centers of power in something like the USSR have little resemblance to the centers of power in the US. Similar levels of obedience and servitude, but vastly different goals.

Re:This is for the best, really

[AviLazar]

No. We are talking about copyright infringement, which---despite publishers' propaganda---is not even remotely the same thing. Copyright infringement ought to be a purely civil (not criminal) matter.


So other then the CD and case, what is the difference between stealing a movie from the video store and downloading it from online? Why is one considered theft (shoplifting) and the other is not? If you say because you are not getting a cd and a case ---not attempting to start a flame war---but you are an idiot. I am actually tired of people demeaning the value of electronic formats because it is not tangeable. So again - whats the difference between stealing from a store and downloaing from the net that should make one theft and the other not theft?

Re:This is for the best, really

[DarkEdgeX]

Nah, theft is the wrong word altogether. Theft implies that the victim is now unable to use the product (e.g. - if I steal a bike then the victim of the theft is now longer able to ride it). "Theft" as it relates to "intellectual property" is impossible. It's impossible for me to deprive members of the MPAA/RIAA of the use of their property-- they are still fully capable of playing it, listening to it, etc.

See, the reason we hear the words "theft", "stealing" and "piracy" is that those words are a lot sexier and carry easy to understand connotations for the public. "Copyright infringement" isn't going to ruffle anybodies feathers though, and the industries know this (or else they wouldn't be desperately trying to reprogram society to associate P2P with "stealing" and every deviation thereof).

BTW: As far as morals are concerned, well, heh, that's a two way street there buddy. And as soon as the various entertainment industries grouped together to try and deprive me of my pre-existing rights (e.g. - the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, the DMCA, the Betamax case (for once the consumer was protected from big mega-corps by a big mega-corp), etc.), I lost all sympathy for them. No, I don't feel guilty at all about downloading music or movies, not in the least.

Re:This is for the best, really

[maximilln]

Wasn't meaning to insult so much as to point out that throwing around terms like that should imply you understand what they actually mean

See, there it is again.

What does the terms communism, socialism, and republic, fascism mean to you? If you go only by the definitions in the dictionary then you'll come up with a mish-mash of interpretations which are almost indistringuishable from each other once put into practice. What we have in the US is a democratically elected fascist state, displaying striking similarities to both communist and socialist implementations, which purports to be a Republic as defined in the Constitution yet violates the 9th and 10th Amendments (the only real important ones) on an hourly basis.

I'm not the one throwing around terms without knowing what they actually mean.

Re:This is for the best, really

[Baki]

Neither do I. I feel only guilte when I buy a CD or DVD and thus support these criminals. They promote the perverse idea of intellectual property to serve their own pockets. This idea is, as others have pointed out, not necessary for the creation of art, as our civilization has developed without it.

What is more important: this idea is anti human; it tries to restrict the exchange of information, thoughts and human creations, which IMHO is a crime against humanity. In order to restrict humanity, they even pervert democracy buy bribing and pressuring elected politicians to "order" their laws against public opinion and democratic principles.

Re:This is for the best, really

[a24061]

Taking something that without paying for it is theft. If it's copyright infringement in addition to theft, then you've got a 2fer.

Are you seriously claiming that copying a CD is worse than shoplifting it?

If I create a work, and explicitly provide access to it for a fee, and you choose to access the work without paying it, you're stealing. It's not an issue of law, it's an issue of right and wrong.

It is an issue of law. Copyright is not a natural right---it's a privilege granted by the state on behalf of society to promote the public good.

Re:This is for the best, really

[a24061]

I am actually tired of people demeaning the value of electronic formats because it is not tangeable.

I'm tired of people mistaking copyright for some kind of right rather than what it really is: a limited privilege that the state grants in order to promote the public good.

Re:This is for the best, really

[a24061]

Oh please, ownership itself is an artificial construct.

But copyright---control over dissemination of information---is a much more artificial right than ownership---based on physical possession.

Re:This is for the best, really

[j-turkey]

Let's be perfectly honest, then. This is the way our system works,"You're the weak and I am the tyranny of evil men." Make all the pretty political speeches you want--our system is a cartel that is no different from any other third world gang of thugs except that ours has the biggest nukes on the planet.

Amen, brother! Now we're speaking the same language. Our government is the largest corporation in our country...and they have the guns to back it up -- and that's all she wrote.

That being said, we do have certain guarantees under law (things like due process). This allows for us to have a stable and free economy, and also allows for international trade. Countries that don't have these guarantees have trouble trading in international markets...especially with free market countries.

Our current implementation of the concept of copyright has no Constitutional empowerment.

Perhaps you're replying to another post that didn't have this in it...but copyright enforcement does have Constitutional backing, and I'd appreciate it if this were the last we rehashed this facet of the greater discussion. (And I hear where you're coming from...you're talking to someone who has some pseudo-libertarian leanings and would like to see less involvement from the federal government). The Commerce Clause in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 allows for federal regulation of copyright. It's not explicit, but IMO, this is exactly the kind of thing that the federal government is supposed to regulate.

Maybe your book sucks and nobody cares about it.

I'm sure that if I wrote a book, it would suck...and under our current system -- regardless of how good or bad it is, it is protected by copyright law as long as it's copyrighted. Here's the thing -- this does not guarantee me any profits...not a cent. Some poor jackass still has to buy my sucky book.

So you form a cartel of book writers, get them all pumped up on this straw man of some nerd with a Xerox machine, and get them to march on Washington to place government a federal officer next to every Xerox machine in the nation. You know what? The cost of paying those federal officers far outweighs any benefit your book has.

See -- here's where we converge back into agreement. I think that DRM sucks. I think that businesses have overstepped the boundaries of reasonable copyright protection. I think that they failed to innovate (or even listen to the market in time) with digital music distribution. I think that instead of doing the right thing right away by rushing internet distribution of music, they tried to lobby the federal government for more regulation. I'm totally against big brotherish type legislation. Furthermore, I'm against doing what Canada did and just puy a levy on all recording media. There's gotta be a middle ground, and there's gotta be a market-based solution. I think that we're halfway there with music. Now onto movies and TV.

I think that those people are making the same mistake that the music industry made (specifically, the MPAA). They're trying to put the cat back into the bag (mostly by rattling cages and sending a strong message). They're also focusing efforts on legislature to protect their assets. They needed a new business model long ago, and I think that they could have done it without any middleman (probably wreaking havoc on distributor agreements in the process, but it's necessary nonetheless). But I'm with you, I do not want...and I don't think that we need big brother-type legislation.

Since you're incapable of drawing a line anywhere you're incapable to speak on anything of "law". In your eyes, the law goes as far as you want it to when you want it to.

Come on. It's not like that. You're making sweeping claims that copyright is completely inval

Re:This is for the best, really

[Suicyco]

I know precisely what the terms I am using mean.

I don't know a source of definition with which you will agree, however I'll use the wikipedia as a mediator on the definitions:

Fascism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

(excerpt)

* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
* espouses nationalism and sometimes racism or ethnic nationalism.


Communism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

(excerpt)

In terms of socio-economic systems, communism and socialism are two different things. For example, socialism involves the existence of a state, while communism does not. Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and private ownership of everything else, while communism abolishes private ownership altogether.

Republic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

(excerpt)

A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where the head of state is not a monarch. The word is derived from the Latin res publica, or "public affair", and suggests an ownership and control of the state by the population at large. The concept of democracy, however, is not implicit to that of a republic. The republican form of government may involve a limited democracy, where such rights are available only to a limited group of people. In some cases, a republic may be a dictatorial or totalitarian state. The term is also broad enough to include representative democracies.


Socialism is too broad a term to really clarify, its like saying "government". I guess it depends on the example, which in this case we can use the USSR, since it is everybody's favorite bad guy.

There are actual definitions for these terms by the way. They are specific socio-economic systems by which certain people do, have or wish to conduct their societies. I think what you are saying is that to you, these terms all mean "bad" or "good" in some form.

Saying "communist police state" is an oxymoron, and simply means you do not understand the political systems to which you refer. "Fascist police state" is not interchangeable with "communist police state."

I'll agree with you on some things. The US certainly seems to be a republic. It certainly seems to show fascist traits. It appears to be a democracy.

I'll disagree that there is anything remotely communist about the US. Nor is there much, if anything, similar to the economic socialism found in the USSR. The police state tactics of the USSR, is more fascist anyway. So yeah, the US shares some traits there.

Ok... so this is WAAAAY off topic... :-)

Re:This is for the best, really

[j-turkey]

But copyright---control over dissemination of information---is a much more artificial right than ownership---based on physical possession.

Agreed. However, just because it's an abstraction, does it make it illegitimate? I mean, currency is an abstraction. I guess that people need to believe in that abstraction in order for it to work (ala Cryptonomicon)...but just the same, it's not too hard for any of us to understand. It seems pretty logical to me, although I'll admit that it's gone farther than I'd prefer.

Re:This is for the best, really

[raile]

I know! And the nerve of people making really bad analogies that are totally irrelevant...

For one thing, you can see the food before you buy it without having to pay for this privelage.

You're one to talk about bad analogies. Movies are to viewing as food is to eating. Both require payment before they are consumed.

Also, unless the food is rotten, one grapefruit isn't gonna taste that much different than the next.

You could make the same argument about the cookie-cutter plots, actors and special effects that Hollywood has been churning out for the last 15-20 years. Again, bad analogy. Like a video rental store, supermarkets are filled with tens of thousands of different food items that most certainly "taste...different than the next". Are you saying that all catsups taste the same? Try telling that to the person that only likes Heinz. Unless you rent the same movie over and over again, your argument falls short.

Movies can't be viewed before you decide to pay, nor do you have any guarantee of standards of quality really.

Again, food can't be eaten before you decide to pay, nor do you have any guarantee of standards of "quality" -- in other words, will this suit my personal taste -- when trying a new product (i.e. a new brand of catsup), until you try it.

The supermarket is but one example of many purveyors of goods in this life that require payment before consumption and no guarantee that you'll like the item you chose. I will agree, however, that with non-consumable items such as clothing, most retailers will allow you to return the item for a refund if you decide you don't like it. The problem is that seeing a movie is really purchasing a block of time to consume something that can be consumed, in theory, an infinite number of times. Even if you didn't like the movie, you still consumed that block of time you purchased. What you're really purchasing when seeing a movie in the theater, for example, is the rental of a small space (your seat) to view the movie. The theatre still has to pay its employees and heat the place, even if you didn't like what you saw in that seat.

Re:This is for the best, really

[MikeBabcock]

Unfortunately, your last comparison (dealing with whether a movie is a consumable or an object that can be returned) is flawed.

Firstly, I was speaking of purchasing a DVD, and my reference to the theatre was only w.r.t. previewing.

I have frequently gone to a movie in the theatre, not liked it and walked out demanding a refund. I've gotten those refunds every time. I go back to see other movies -- I guess your consumable argument falls down.

Secondly, as for buying a DVD, you can also return it if you don't like it -- or can you? Most places won't take them back, like software, for some reason. For that reason, I only buy used DVDs at the local second-hand shop. Good selection too.

Re:This is for the best, really

[raile]

Unfortunately, your last comparison (dealing with whether a movie is a consumable or an object that can be returned) is flawed.

Fine, it still works with a DVD. So you think that a grocery store would routinely accept items for return that were mostly eaten because they didn't suit your taste? The problem is that retailers don't know how much of that DVD you consumed before returning it, so they have to assume you watched all of it. I'd be laughed out of the store if I tried to return a mostly empty jar of jelly, not because there was some kind of material defect, but because I just didn't like the taste.

Secondly, as for buying a DVD, you can also return it if you don't like it -- or can you? Most places won't take them back, like software, for some reason.

I think you know why they won't take them back. It's because, again, the content being purchased is non-consumable and can be easily duplicated. If a book could be quickly, cheaply and undetectibly duplicated by a home consumer using a high-tech book duplicating machine (yes, I know about photocopiers, but this is not undetectable, quick or cheap), do you think that book stores would continue to be so liberal about accepting returns? I think not. If the stores themselves weren't willing to recind their "liberal" return policies, you bet your boots that the publishing industry would be all over their backs about it, just like the entertainment industry is up in arms about movie and music duplication.

Re:This is for the best, really

[MikeBabcock]

You don't "consume" a DVD. Get over it.

Yes, a grocery store will accept rotten food back -- I've done it. "I bought this yesterday and its covered in mold already"

Oh, and read the label on that jar of jelly. "Return unused portion for refund". Most companies *want* you to tell them you didn't like their product.

GET O-V-E-R IT.

Every company in the world understands the consumer is their customer except the music/movie industry who wants to push us into slavery.

Re:This is for the best, really

[AviLazar]

Or it's a law to help protect the
rights of the person who created it. The person who made the work has a lot more vested interest in the project then joe schmoe. Thusly, the person should have a hell of a lot more say, control, and authority then anyone else. But I am glad that you believe that people's works - once made - should be in the control of the "public" (i.e. gov't) instead of the person who made it.

Re:This is for the best, really

[raile]

You don't "consume" a DVD. Get over it.

con.sume (v.) "To purchase (goods or services) for direct use or ownership."

Yes, a grocery store will accept rotten food back -- I've done it. "I bought this yesterday and its covered in mold already"

That's because it's defective, not because you didn't like it. Stores will gladly exchange for a defective disc.

Oh, and read the label on that jar of jelly. "Return unused portion for refund". Most companies *want* you to tell them you didn't like their product.

This is true, but this is a return directly to the manufacturer, not to the retailer. And you don't think that the manufacturer would stop giving you refunds when you keep returning their goods?

Every company in the world understands the consumer is their customer except the music/movie industry who wants to push us into slavery.

I wholeheartedly agree that the entertainment industry is fighting a battle they can't win (although I'd skip your "slavery" drama). I also understand from a retailer's point of view that unlike material goods that are visibly "used", media like music and DVDs are ripe for copy/return abuse and cut into their profits. Blame the pirates, not the honest consumers like you and me. Again, I'm talking about from a retailer's point of view; I'm not trying to debate P2P.

Re:This is for the best, really

[maximilln]

When you can put those definitions into 200 of your own words or less then you may demonstrate competency.

Quoting wikipedia just means you're a web monkey.

Re:This is for the best, really

[Suicyco]

I do not have any need to demonstrate compentency.

All I wanted to do was clear up that you are, in fact, talking out of your proverbial rear end. I was trying to educate you.

Re: I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Alwin Henseler]

You're trolling here, right?

It is not anyone's right to break the law, no matter how silly the law is.

You're right. If the law is silly enough, then it's not your right, but your duty to break it. It's called civil disobedience.

And I bet you would just love intellectual property laws if you had any intellectual property.

I do have some intellectual 'property', and no, both as consumer and producer copyright laws and such are still just a bother to me.

Re:what site are they talking about?

[wheany]

Finreactor.com. Don't bother trying to visit it, though.

Raid in france

[treuf]

Source : http://fr.news.yahoo.com/041215/1/46m9q.html

ALPA (french RIAA) - with the RIAA help, and police today closed a bittorrent hosting site (http://torrent.youceff.com) holding many copyrighted movies.
That site was hosted in France and a court order was sent to catch peoples using the service at the same time - it seems they logged 160000 unique IPs.

Under local lows, the site admin can get up to 3 years of jail + an up to 300000 fine.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[gowen]

101 idiotic ways make a point:

#73 : compare the struggle against the MPAA in your attempts to download motion pictures from the Internet with the emancipation of a race of people from racist oppression.

Don't get me wrond, I do understand your point (i.e. that the original post was a massive overgeneralisation) but you don't do yourself any favours comparing what are basically selfish goals with the one of the great heroes of the 20th century.

Right...

[paranode]

A bad law is a bad thing, and civil disobedience is one way to protest it.

So giving owners copyrights over their own work is a bad thing, eh? You're ready to throw out the GPL as invalid, then?

Oh right, copyrights are only bad if it stops you from getting movies and music for free. Gotcha.

Re:Right...

[Anonymous Coward]

So giving owners copyrights over their own work is a bad thing, eh? You're ready to throw out the GPL as invalid, then?

Yup. Read up on the history of the GPL sometime. If it weren't for copyright there wouldn't even be a *need* for the GPL. Hence it's jab at copyright in coining the term "copyleft".

The GPL is fundamentally an anti-copyright weapon that uses copyright laws to fight it's battles. The day copyright laws are abolished is the day the GPL has won it's final battle.

Kids these days don't seem to understand this...

Re:Right...

[jedidiah]

Except the current situation has nothing to do with authors being given 1790 style rights to their creative works.

Re:Right...

[l4m3z0r]

The parent was just reacting to some foolish assertion that all laws should be enforced and followed no matter how stupid they are. I doubt he was applying it to the current situation very much because "stealing" music and nelson mandela are way different.

Basically the reason people steal music is that the industry has failed to provide the service to us adaquately. Its not the users fault, they aren't evil. Greed is the only reason why we have suits and arrests right now, the RIAA refuses to address the problem and instead is fighting a war they can't win(sound familiar see: War on drugs). Furthermore everything seems to indicate that music and film piracy has little effect on overall sales and honestly I don't see metallica starving, maybe if they bought less coke they wouldn't need the tiny bit of extra cash... You can come back and say what about the indie artists all you want, if anything this increases exposure and sales...

Re:Right...

[paranode]

Except the current situation has nothing to do with authors being given 1790 style rights to their creative works.

It's easy to see who's being unreasonable when you consider a copyright owner asking people not to rip and distribute their works over Internet peer-to-peer networks to be "1790 style".

Re:Right...

[moonbender]

So giving owners copyrights over their own work is a bad thing, eh?

YES! Not clear enough? YES!!!

Re:Right...

[greggman]

Wrong. The day copyright is abolished is the day I don't have to release any source for anything I make from GPLed sources. While you will be able to copy the binary if I release it (and assuming you can break whatever DRM I use) I will not be required to give out the source.

That's not the case today. Because of copyright law I am required to give out the source

Re:Right...

[Pig Hogger]

So giving owners copyrights over their own work is a bad thing, eh?

Copyright is GOOD and okay.

Allowing copyright holders to CONTROL their work to an extents that VIOLATES other people's right (to fair use, for example) is BAD.

Re:Right...

[XMyth]

Funny...he didn't say anything about copyright law....perhaps he was just responding to the poster's comment?

Re:Right...

[greggman]

If I can successfully DRM it, regardless of what rights you have to copy the data I am under no obligation to unlock it or make sense of it for you.

Re:Right...

[paranode]

Allowing copyright holders to CONTROL their work to an extents that VIOLATES other people's right (to fair use, for example) is BAD.

To this of course I can agree. Though the issue at hand is more about the legality of distributing over P2P networks, not backing up your CD collection for fair use.

Re:Right...

[moonbender]

Intelligent people won't listen to you, just like they don't listen to either extreme fundamentalist Christians, or extreme fundamentalist athiests.

They don't have any choice, my karma is excellent and I post at +2! ;)

That said, I'm not exactly fundamental. I used to be at peace (or at least, cease-fire) with the fact that I hypocritically violate my own moral beliefs in downloading stuff. I wasn't happy about that, but then again mostly everyone - and certainly everyone on Slashdot - is either acting hypocritically on occasion or is an idiot (because he doesn't realise his wrongs). For instance, I drive too fast (no more so than mostly everybody else) even though I know it's endangering myself and others.

But lately, I started wondering if maybe it's not my behavior that needs adjusting, but rather my morals - maybe there really is nothing wrong with downloading. Maybe copyright law is just a major error that should be abolished. It's certainly a limitation of my freedom, so it has to be justified - and maybe its merits just don't justify its downsides. Getting rid of it would certainly have an impact, the world would look different. But would it be worse?

You see, I don't have a problem with saying, yep, it would be worse, I want copyright to stay. But even thinking about this is prohibited, even on Slashdot - in the mainstream the thought just doesn't come up. Personally, I'm actually not sure if it would be worse, I've not thought about it that much yet. In many areas, despite copyright law, there already is quality, free content: music, application software, news, short stories, comics. In others, not so much: computer games, movies, TV series. I think the former would do all right, I'm not sure about the latter. But then, it's really hard to predict what exactly would happen, copyright is so entrenched into my mind.

The grandparent posed a rhetorical question: So giving owners copyrights over their own work is a bad thing, eh? The thought that there could be more than a simple answer to this question never seemed to cross his mind. That fucking sucks.

Finally, you say that intelligent people won't listen. Okay, so be it. From what I've seen, the problem typically isn't getting the intelligent people to listen but rather the fact that there are so few of them.

Re:Right...

[swilver]

...and there will a thousands others writing the same software and making it available for free with source IF your product is innovative enough that others will want it.

Abolishing Copyright will do more good than bad. The GPL will simply no longer be needed.

Re:Right...

[jedidiah]

Actually, that wouuld be 2004 style. Copyright originally existed as a balance between public and private interests. Intellectual property was never meant to be equivalent to real property. Copyright is meant to enhance the state of the art.

That is a state that moves much faster now than it did in 1790.

If anything, copyright terms should be getting shorter. Oddly enough, the current regime is probably a throwback to pre-1790 conditions.

Media moguls have far more to fear from a proper public domain than they do from any swapper tool.

Re:Right...

[DarkEdgeX]

In a copyright free world you honestly believe DRM would stand a snowballs chance in hell of being accepted or even working?

Re:Right...

[bbc]

That is true, and that is why the GPL was not intended for the likes of you. You may be able to be a parasite on the GPL ("stealing" the "intellectual property" of the Free Software Foundation, to put it in the words of the proponents of free beer for publishers), but that doesn't mean we should retain copyright as it is just to enable you to stay that parasite.

Re:Right...

[Tim C]

there will a thousands others writing the same software and making it available for free with source

And while they're spending their time writing this code, who's paying their bills? Or do you suggest that they be forced to switch from primarily producing software to primarily supporting/maintaining/extending it?

Re:Right...

[swilver]

I said, if the software is really WORTH using, then someone will write a different/better version. If it is not, well, who cares. Just look at the tons of BitTorrent clients, who is paying their bills?

Re:Right...

[r55man]

While you will be able to copy the binary if I release it (and assuming you can break whatever DRM I use) I will not be required to give out the source.

In this case the source is irrelevant. In the absence of copyright laws the binary can be freely copied, cracked, decompiled, and reverse engineered. If your software was at all popular, the resources you would have to expend to keep the source hidden would far outweigh any benefits of doing so. You'd be one man against an army of thousands, and there would be no way you could win.

The only reason you can benefit with closed source today is because existing laws give you powerful weapons (lawyers and judges) to fight with. The GPL is just a counter-tactic that says tells us we need to pick up the same weapons in order to level the playing field.

If it were up to most of us who license code under the GPL (and I'm one of them), the world would be a better place if both sides could agree to put down their weapons. But that means abolishing copyright laws, and as the aggressors, your side has to make the first move.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[imsabbel]

And of course its just TOO nice that the civil disobedience also provides music, movies, games, ect. without ever paying for them.
Its really tough to be a dissident in digital times...

In 100 years...

[Anonymous Coward]

In 100 years, when people read about these events in history books rather than newspapers, it's going to seem totally insane... our police forces chasing after and persecuting people for what essentially amounts to the distribution of ideas. If only the rest of the world could see it from a historical perspective. When we look back on the witch hunts of a few hundred years ago, we wonder how the masses ever got themselves set on such a self-destructive course, and why they allowed it to continue for so long. But when you're caught up in the drama of it all, it's sometimes hard to imagine life in any other way. So how long will we allow these witch hunts over intellectual property to continue?

Re:In 100 years...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

In 100 years, when people read about these events in history books

In 100 years, who says you will be allowed access those history books?

Re:In 100 years...

[Zebbers]

Or in 100 years it will be even worse.

Re:In 100 years...

[stubear]

"...for what essentially amounts to the distribution of ideas."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Ideas CANNOT be copyrighted, only the expression of an idea can. This is a VERY important distinction to understand and clearly you do not. Once I've fixed my expression of an idea in a tangible form it's mine. You can still express this very same idea in a different way and not violate my copyright. A great example of this is the way Pixar and Dreamworks both did films about ants. A Bug's Life and Antz both told the story of how a single ant was able to save their colony from disaster. The core ideas of the film were very much the same but the expression of this story was very different. A Bug's Life could even be a tribute to the old ant and the grasshopper fable, once again proving that there are still valuable works in the public domain even if copyright lasts as long as it does.

Re:In 100 years...

[NeoSkandranon]

They're more likely going to say

"I can't believe those greedy bastards thought they had a right to watch media for free and not get in trouble"

Re:In 100 years...

[MrMickS]

our police forces chasing after and persecuting people for what essentially amounts to the distribution of ideas.

In the case of movies a great many people earn a living from making these. I'm not talking about the stars, the actors, the directors etc. I am talking about the set builders, the costume makers, the musicians etc. To me that's more than just ideas.

All of these ideas have a cost generated with producing them and real people, rather than faceless entities, that earn a living from their production. Anyone can have an idea, to dismiss all things as mere ideas once work is done to convert them into something more tangible, de-values the work of the people that carried it out.

The logic conclusion of your hypothesis is that the distribution of idea and derived works should be free regardless of the wish of the creator. I am assuming because of some right of the individual to those ideas and derived works. What of the rights of the creator?

Re:In 100 years...

[wiredog]

I dunno. Look at the history of AT&T. They went after patent violators with crowbars.

Re:In 100 years...

[wes33]

could not the same be said about the infamous buggy-whip makers?

if the market for films disappears then so will the jobs (there is no right to keep making money from a particular form of revenue source)

the question is whether the non-commercial sharing of information (music, text or video) should be illegal because of copyright laws

a sub-question is what form should copyright take on such material in the first place. I myself favour a one or two year period of initial copyright with renewals possible for a significant fee (money collected to go to lending libraries :) )

Re:In 100 years...

[swilver]

In the long term (hopefully 100 years) we should be able to duplicate physical objects as easy as operating a the average microwave oven.

Then the manufacturing industry will face the same problem as the software/music/movie industries have now. However, given that such devices could almost completely eliminate world hunger and poverty it will be accepted. At that point we will realize how ridiculous copyrighting certain bit patterns really is.

Re:In 100 years...

[stubear]

In your example you are sued for circumventing encryption (DeCSS, and also an expression of an idea by the way) used to protect intellectual property.

Re:In 100 years...

[retinaburn]

Kindly hand over your Credit Card numbers, Name, and other information, after all its just 'ideas'. Or are you saying the digit that is your credit card number is more valuable than a product that people paid to produce and have a right to make money off of.

Re:In 100 years...

[elpapacito]

Isn't it very curious that

if artists/workers both creative and executive (most of them get dimes out of the deal) complain about their conditions and form an union that's considereded by some to be communist, evil, anti market or somehow despicable (some would like to criminalize strikes and unions)

if companies make a union-like association (RIAA,MPAA) and attempt to defend their profit by striking "pirate" free redistributors (who seem not to make million dollars out of it, otherwise why should they expose themselves, they could be living off interests) then they're only doing good, protecting somebody else interest and they're not diverting taxpayer money in private interest police raids. Aren't these communist, evil, anti market associations under a capitalist dress as well?

I for one don't want my taxpayer money to finance RIAA raids, as music industry didn't ever give me a dime.

Question for legitimate P2P users

[TrollBridge]

What are YOU doing to protect P2P?

Let's face it, there are a lot of people out there who are using P2P to illegally acquire and distribute copywrited materials.

P2P is being threatened, not only by corporate executives and ignorant congresscritters, but by people who abuse the technology. P2P will be outlawed outright unless the legitimate users of P2P networks start policing their own.

How? Well that's a good question. A willingness to admit that there is a problem would be a good place to start.

Re:Question for legitimate P2P users

[quakeroatz]

BARF.

So you're a clergyman? Bishop?

I supppose you don't break copyright laws ever? Liar.

POT KETTLE BLACK

Re:Question for legitimate P2P users

[Ceriel Nosforit]

Outlaw P2P? You do realize that for such a law to be effective it means I could no longer legally connect to your system, or any other, right? It'd be the end of the internet.

Re:Question for legitimate P2P users

[tepples]

It'd be the end of the internet.

You don't get it. MPAA would accept ending all of Al Gore's Internets except the ones that connect to movie ticket and DVD sales sites.

Re:what site are they talking about?

[Jarnis]

Finreactor

Basically registered-user-only finnish 'suprnova clone'. With ratios and other 'pseudo-l33t' stuff.

Basically they nabbed bunch of teens or barely-18 clueless idiots.

Re:What a haul...

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Haven't you ever heard the word "puppet"? It looks like someone in the USA is pulling the strings again.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Yes, it is never right to break any law.

Those people hiding jews in their crawlspaces, wanting to sit at the front of the bus, and who can forget those miscreants who continue to publish slanderous lies about the chinese government.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[halivar]

This is good.

No matter how stupid the P2P laws are, it is good when they are enforced. It is not anyone's right to break the law, no matter how silly the law is.

How would you like to spend 10 years in prison + $10,000 in fines (as per DMCA) for breaking the speed limit? Heck, going 40 in a 35 is more of a public risk.

Now, since we all know damned good and well you go 60 mph in that 55 mph highway, feel free to get off your high-horse any time you wish.

Re:What a haul...

[jedidiah]

Except no one is stealing anything.

They are MANUFACTURING.

Pirates merely exploit the same characteristic of "intellectual property" that Media Moguls do: production costs are trivial.

Re:What a haul...

[3terrabyte]

It's no different than the sum amount the slapped Kevin Mitnick with.

Re:What a haul...

[nordi]

I always thought something was worth whatever you actually paid for it.

Close, but not quite correct. It is worth as much as you would be _willing_ to pay for it. So the actual loss is much lower, but certainly not zero.

Assume 1 million songs get illegally downloaded that would usually cost $1, but the downloaders would be willing to pay at most $0.5. Then the loss is $500k, not zero or $1M.

Because of Greed: No

[denis-The-menace]

The Movie Mafia is addicted to high profits.
They pitch it as "Own it today" like you would a book but don't want you to copy it.
So that means they are Licensing it but they will not recognize that you have already
paid for your license when the media fails or gets lost.

Either way they will loose:
-If they loose control: They will get less $ for their movies.
-If they get absolute control: People will start making their own movies and will get NO $.

volunteers?

[shawn(at)fsu]

No good deed goes unpunished.

OSQ
"Did you knows these so called volunteers don't even get paid" -Homer

Re:What a haul...

[LurkerXXX]

Well, it doesn't really matter in that the people were willing to download the movies, songs, or software rather than pay the known retail price for them. They knew they were downloading something with a known retail value, and that it was illegal.

If you are going to do the crime, be ready to do the time. It's well known that the charge of the crime is going to be based off the retail rate for the product. They are being charged with avoiding paying that known retail value. I don't see what's wrong with listing that.

Re:What a haul...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but you must admit, without an alternative you would be more likely to buy it.... I haven't bought a CD in years...although my reasons are different...

just buy a mac :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

You can download ipod files from apple and play them with the knowledge that your safe with DRM.

just buy a mac :-)

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Have Blue]

DOWNLOADING STUFF FROM THE INTERNET IS NOT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. Civil disobedience involves suffering the consequences of your action, to bring the public's attention to those consequences. Hiding in your parents' basement loading up DVD-Rs with ripped movies accomplishes nothing towards the goal of changing copyright law; if anything it strengthens the **AA's claim that copyright infringement is too easy and widespread and must be legally and programmatically curtailed.

As the grandparent suggested, you have almost certainly never been involved in the creation of anything that can be pirated. But I bet you're utterly outraged at GPL violations, too. Those damn copyright infringers and license breakers... oh wait.

MOD PARENT UP

[DarkEdgeX]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, spare me. If this is civil disobedience, we should be glad they got busted. That's the whole point. It isn't civil disobedience if you're trying to avoid getting caught.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!

[Xiaran]

("how dare they stop me from stealing!")

Im not defending the argument on P2P downloding of copyrighted material is ethically right here. But I grow really tired of it being said that it is "stealing". It isnt. I was watching a BBC news report on the BitTorrent crackdown and some movie indistry suit kept referring to stealing and theives. Its copyright violation ! If it were stealing then we already have laws about stealing so those laws would be used... copyright violation is civil.

Shareconnector too

[T-Kir]

They had a Paypal donation system to raise 7500 euros for new server equipment, and they disabled the user comments pages when the appeal first went up (i.e. peeps just wondering 'where' the money was going, etc etc).

I think they finally hit around 7150 euros a week or two ago, although they'd purchased the new hardware 2 weeks before that... and all that newly purchased equipment is now in the hand of the police, what timing!

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[squiggleslash]

That's right. Downloading movies from the Internet so you don't have to pay towards the costs of making them is certainly a comparable activity to the examples you mention. Why, I was comparing the 70 years + lifetime rule to the Holocaust only the other day.

Those who want the law reformed need to posit credible alternatives, alternatives that ensure that movies (and music and books etc) can still be made, before arguing that there's something inherently unjust in having to pay to have access copyrighted material.

Right now, the only person I've seen who's made any effort to do this is Richard M. Stallman: his proposals only seem to apply successfully to computer software (I can't see a GPL'd movie being fundable, can you?); they do not require copyright reform; and he's demonised on Slashdot all the time as some kind of raving lunatic for his efforts.

Civil disobedience doesn't simply involve breaking laws that get in your way. They involve breaking the unjust parts of laws that are clearly unjust to begin with. Given copyright law, as it stands, gave people the movies they so deliberately set out to download without paying for, and given the lack of proposed alternatives that are relevent to that medium, and the hatred spewed by the same idiots who like P2P against those who make the efforts to formulate alternatives, I find it hard to accept there's any civil disobedience here. It's a simple case of freeloading.

And, you know what, if everyone downloading a movie today who hasn't made some effort to directly fund it - bought the DVD, watched it at the theater, etc - spent a day in jail tomorrow for doing just that, I'd see it as just desserts.

Finland

[CrazyJim0]

Finland Finland Finland
The country you don't want to p2p

Re:yeah

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

Nope, I own not one single pirated DVD. Thanks for playing, though. OTOH, I think that Disney has used copyright extensions to lockout new competition from the market. After all, Disney wouldn't be here at all if they had to deal with current copyright terms at their outset.

But my reply was more directed toward the parent posters scorn about blaming the actions of other countries' MPAA on the US body, even when that is obviously the case. The MPAA is certainly pulling the strings on this one.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Anonymous Coward]

... but you don't do yourself any favours comparing what are basically selfish goals ...

I wouldn't call supporting the free flow of information purely selfish. Our society has the technology to almost freely distribute any kind of information. Big corporations try to prevent this progress, because they are scared that they lose their grip on people. Information is what advances our society, it's the essence of all progress. Making a sharing of information a criminal act is a very slippery slope towards totalitarism and intellectually poor society.

Small European

Interesting outlook

[paranode]

Basically the reason people steal music is that the industry has failed to provide the service to us adaquately.

So paying 99 or even 88 cents a track is a failure on their part? The only price most traders seem to agree to is zero.

Its not the users fault, they aren't evil. Greed is the only reason why we have suits and arrests right now

And it's not greed that makes users turn a blind eye to legitimate online digital music offerings in favor of illegal file trading for free?

Furthermore everything seems to indicate that music and film piracy has little effect on overall sales and honestly I don't see metallica starving, maybe if they bought less coke they wouldn't need the tiny bit of extra cash... You can come back and say what about the indie artists all you want, if anything this increases exposure and sales...

And herein lies the ultimate problem. This anti-establishment mentality people have manages to convince them that ownership is only important if the owner is poor. Steal from the rich, but never the poor. Equal protection of the laws applies only to those who don't drive nice cars?

Re:Interesting outlook

[DarkEdgeX]

So paying 99 or even 88 cents a track is a failure on their part? The only price most traders seem to agree to is zero.

Yes it is too much, to be honest. A full album can be had for around $12, most albums (that I've ever bought anyways) usually had around 8-10 tracks on them. Considering you're getting it in a lossy and often DRM'd format, I expect it to be cheaper than buying the CD. Simply being able to pick and choose tracks isn't enough, especially considering the DRM ties it to your PC and you the company offering it only pays for the bandwidth used to send it to you (which is arguably offset by the money you paid for bandwidth to download it from them).

If the formats were lossless and weren't DRM'd I think you'd see a different situation. Sure there'd still be the urge to share them via P2P, but had the record companies done this from the beginning, before Napster, the urge to run off to a P2P network wouldn't exist.

Now they have to overcome years of users being used to trading files over P2P networks, a situation they put themselves in by not innovating and desperately clinging to a broken business model.

Re:Interesting outlook

[Big Boss]

I agree. I would pay close to $1/song, if and only if I were to receive it in an open, lossless, non-DRMed format. FLAC would do nicely. I will also pay for non-DRMed MP3 files in LAME-Standard for significantly less, say $.50/song. I will NOT pay for music in ANY DRM format.

To get me to pay for said files, I require a well designed website, accessable with standard HTTPS in FireFox on ANY platform from ANY country with a transfer rate of at least 100KBytes/sec (~1Mbit/sec). iTMS on steroids, basicly. I would also accept BitTorrent style transfers, so long as the music company site seeded it at said transfer rate. Bonus points for supporting OGG, AAC, and WMA. More bonus points for remembering my license so I can re-download for a small fee (.10/song maybe? Have to cover bandwidth charges) should I lose my copy.

If they do this, I will cease all P2P activity, and all offshore site activity and use thier music services. Same goes for TV, Movies, etc.. The prices would have to be higher for those given the larger bandwidth required.

I'm willing to pay, if I get what I want. For example, I pay a certain Russian website (always mentioned on /.) for music these days because it's eaiser and faster than messing with P2P networks. The price is reasonable, no DRM, and the music sounds good. I'd pay more than I pay the Russians, but I want to see what I mentioned above with the entire back catalog to about 1970 to start with. Completing the back catalog at about a decade per year should be reasonable. For new stuff, I'd settle for it coming available something like 1 week after store release on CD.

Re:Interesting outlook

[l4m3z0r]

So paying 99 or even 88 cents a track is a failure on their part?

Yes since 1) all tracks are not available 2) use of these DRM laden tracks is extremely restricted. The so called fair use of these tracks is the most annoying part, why should i pay a buck for a song that I can legally only hear on X number of computers, and only using X technology thats just plane rediculous.

And it's not greed that makes users turn a blind eye to legitimate online digital music offerings in favor of illegal file trading for free?

Nope. Studies have shown that the majority of people download stuff that they wouldn't buy anyways. Downloading mp3's has replaced radio. I don't need to pay for radio, radio increases exposure. The solution to this would be to require these p2p companies to pay a portion of advertising take to record labels.

This anti-establishment mentality people have manages to convince them that ownership is only important if the owner is poor. Steal from the rich, but never the poor.

Well anyone who would say stealing $5 from Bill Gates is just as bad as stealing $5 from the homeless guy who needs that for food is just plain kidding themselves or heartless. I'm sorry but impact should determine how bad a crime is.

The problem with you is that you'd consider Robin Hood to be a horrible man one that should be facing the gallows. You don't take into account that the rich and powerful use there influence to exploit the weak and poor while at the same time make it legal for them to do so(the rich control the government). I'm sorry but ownership should be tipped in the scales of the poor in order to offset the fact that the rich can afford better legal representation(in our adversarial system this matters alot) and honestly just because the poor need it more.

Re:Interesting outlook

[bbc]

"So paying 99 or even 88 cents a track is a failure on their [the music industry's] part?"

That is correct.

"The only price most traders seem to agree to is zero."

You are wrong there. The only price all traders have agreed to so far is zero.

You are obviously unaware of the basics of the working of a free market. Unfortunately, I have not the time to educate you. Perhaps some other time. Suffice it to say for now, that the only way we are going to find out what is the optimal prices where buyers and suppliers will meet, is by experimenting.

In other words, we do no know yet what price traders would agree to.

Re:Interesting outlook

[bbc]

We weren't talking about P2P, we were talking about the cost of songs, and what people who regularly use P2P for downloading songs would be willing to pay.

Law is not a substitute for morality

[tjstork]

Arguing that you are in favor of the status quo because it is the law is a circular argument! This is a debate about what the law should be. In a society where the government is by the consent of the governed, we have the right to argue whether a law is good or bad and needs to be changed, and we also have the right to decide if the risks of compliance are worth it.

In simpler times yes, crimes could be equated with moral wrongs. It is both wrong and illegal to kill a man. It is both wrong and illegal to rape a woman. But in these days much of law concerns itself with the government ceding the rights of the people to businesses in order to create a more profitable economy for the owners of those businesses, and the morality of that is questionable.

Those who have seen me post will know that, if anything, I'm a Republican Troll, but, even I cannot agree with the preposterous notion that violating a law at the expense of a corporation is tantamount to sin.

In your specific case, you defend the rights of broadcasters at the expense of the man who cannot get TV. But, keep in mind that under Federal Law, that man is NOT allowed to broadcast so that TV stations can make money. What would the landscape of America look like if we could all broadcast on TV? What if TV stations were limited by a range of a 5 miles, not 50? Why should the rights to the airwaves be the exclusive domain of a few? And what of the right of way to put wires in the ground? Why should I have to give up my ground? The public domains that get granted? The right of companies to put satellites over my house or fly planes over my house so that I cannot launch planes or model rockets of my own? In order to have this industrial society, the people have had to give up a huge mountain of rights, and often without any real consent of their own. So yes, while you may not agree with someone stealing TV broadcasts, at the same token, recognize that in some measure they are exercizing their own Declaration of Independence Right to Revolt, upon which this nation was founded.

Re:Law is not a substitute for morality

[shark72]

"But in these days much of law concerns itself with the government ceding the rights of the people to businesses in order to create a more profitable economy for the owners of those businesses, and the morality of that is questionable."

Copyright law protects us all. Big companies tend to have the money to spend to protect their rights under the law, but the vast majority of copyrights are held by individuals who are certainly not big businesses and simply don't have the resources to defend themselves if some Slashdotter violates their rights in the guise of civil disobedience.

"In your specific case, you defend the rights of broadcasters at the expense of the man who cannot get TV. But, keep in mind that under Federal Law, that man is NOT allowed to broadcast so that TV stations can make money."

I'm not even sure how this relates to the case at hand (downloading TV shows as a substitute for paying for cable), but remember that anybody may apply for a television broadcasting license. There are tons of tiny UHF stations out there. Likewise, it's pretty easy for individuals to get airtime on community access stations. This isn't a case of company's rights vs. individual's rights at all.

"The right of companies to put satellites over my house or fly planes over my house so that I cannot launch planes or model rockets of my own?"

Getting a pilot's license is also fairly easy. It takes hard work, and there are safety requirements, but there are no private enterprises that are preventing the public at large from operating their own planes. I'm not familiar with model rocketry safety rules, but I'm not aware of any private companies that are restricting my rite to fly one.

I think the point that you are implicitly making is that flying a plane, launching a communication satellite, or operating a TV station requires money, and a large company is more likely to have the cash to do so than the average individual. You are absolutely correct, but this is not the same as a large company interfering with my right to do any of these things. Similarly, owning a Ferarri takes more money than most individuals have, whereas I can picture a successful company giving a Ferarri to an executive as a bonus. But if I want a Ferarri of my own, it's entirely up to me -- no private third party company is interfering with my rights to buy that Ferarri.

Re:Law is not a substitute for morality

[tjstork]

Copyright law doesn't protect us all. In general, intellectual property doesn't. You've said it yourself, it's a question of money. If some people can defend their rights, and other's cannot, then, the law doesn't protect everyone.

Why should you even have to apply for a broadcast license? Why can't I just broadcast? Because it infringes on the right of someone to have a bigger transmitter than me? Instead of selling licenses for big people to broadcast, why not just limit transmitter sizes and let everyone broadcast? Why not just give everyone a frequency, Kenneth?

In terms of model rocketry, there are many, many limitations and the ATF is actually looking to ban model rockets altogether. Basically, they are designed to keep me from accidently hitting a plane flying over my house. Sounds good, but, why is the plane flying over my house to begin with?

Get it?

Re:Law is not a substitute for morality

[j0e_average]

..they are exercizing their own Declaration of Independence Right to Revolt, upon which this nation was founded.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sadly, I think the end-result will not be a revolution in support of consumer rights. We are a nation governed by corporate interests.

Re:Law is not a substitute for morality

[NDPTAL85]

So basically you are saying that a man has a right to watch television, but the companies that make it happen don't have a right to the profits their labor produces?

Re:Law is not a substitute for morality

[tjstork]

I hardly see the need for special legal sympathy for the producers of television when the producers of every other manufactured good are getting nothing but the continual shaft in the interests of progress.

The airwaves go into the air, and land on my TV set. At they point they are the recipients. If the recipient wants to post them on his website, that's his perogative. It used to be that TV was a good business model, but so too was making horseshoes.

It sucks for the guys making TV shows, but, just like it is for the programmers displaced by Indians or outsourced labor, just like it is for the union guy displaced by a mexican or a chinamen, it's just too bad. Maybe if your side was as concerned about the millions of other people displaced by change, the plight of the studio executive or wealthy recording star might merit more sympathy. But, it's not, so fuck them.

Corruption and Racketeering

[turgid]

In Canada I even pay my blank recording media levvy, so I already know that all artists are being compensated

Are they really?

IIRC, here in the UK, we don't pay a levy on blank media (or there'd be hell to pay, Jlo and Brittany Spires ain't getting a penny out of me when I back up my computer) but we do have things such as the Performers Rights Society for collecting a fee for music paid in pubs, restaurants, shops etc.

The thing is, the society gets the money which then goes to the record company cartel. Too bad if your record label isn't in the cartel. I think they take the money and keep it.

That's how it used to be. Maybe things are different now...

And don't get me started on my TV license, which goes to fund BBC Radio 1 which pays record companies to advertise their wares on the public airwaves. Talk about a racket (and I don't just mean the affected whinging coming out of the radio).

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Quattro Vezina]

It is not anyone's right to break the law, no matter how silly the law is.

No. If a law is Immoral, it is everyone's Moral Responsibility to break that law.

And I bet you would just love intellectual property laws if you had any intellectual property.

Wow. This just goes to show that you have no concept of how anyone can have Morals.

The worlds biggest tracker...

[muffen]

... this is how likely it is that they will be able to shut down the largest bittorrent tracker in the world (and the answer to the question you are thinking about is no, that site is not a tracker) :)

this is a joke

[suezz]

So I guess all the video recordings I made with my vcr and let freinds view it because they didn't see the show was against the law. - the only difference is I didn't put them on the internet to share with other folks that didn't see it. what difference does it make if I shared a video tape recording with one friend or a thousand on the internet - you are still breaking the law. this is nothing but a joke - lawyers seeing an opportunity to sue more people than ever and just to get rich. I can't believe the governments that are suppose to be for the people let them get away with this crap.

Re:this is a joke

[shark72]

"So I guess all the video recordings I made with my vcr and let freinds view it because they didn't see the show was against the law. - the only difference is I didn't put them on the internet to share with other folks that didn't see it. what difference does it make if I shared a video tape recording with one friend or a thousand on the internet - you are still breaking the law."

Not correct. Copyright law is long and arcane for a reason; much of it goes into the nature of the nature of the use of copyrighted material. Phrases like "fair use" and "public performance" come into play here, as does the economic impact -- think about it for a few minutes and I'm sure you'll understand the potential difference in economic impact between watching a movie with some friends in the privacy of your home vs. making that movie available for download by thousands of strangers. Additionally, even while some trivial copyright infringement is technically illegal, it's under the radar and not worth enforcing.

By the way, lots of laws work this way. For example, there is certainly a difference between giving a joint to a friend vs. selling a thousand joints to a thousand "friends" whom you don't know; and there's a difference between sneaking a $10 bill out of your mom's purse vs. taking $10,000 from her.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[MassacrE]

I would argue that current US copyright laws are immoral. Mass Media and Pop culture are pretty much the only culture we have anymore.

My great grandchildren will not be able to watch the movies or listen to the music I like today because it will _still_ be under copyright in 70 years. How could you possibly think having some random corporate entity charge royalties for "Happy Birthday" can be right moral compromise?

Granted people aren't being physically harmed, but random people are being threatened with lawsuits and financially harmed for something which really benefits the public good; having creative works exposed to as many people as possible.

To take laws written to protect the authors from the powerful publishers and turn them as a weapon for publishers to legally threaten their own customers, how is _that_ moral?

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Nodatadj]

The intellectual property laws are what protect me when I give my code away for free. If the intellectual property laws did not exist, I would not give my code away, as they protect me from someone taking my work and claiming they made it.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Aceto3for5]

Why is it our responsibility to ensure that record labels and movie studios can make as much money as possible?

Re:What a haul...

[moonbender]

Assume 1 million songs get illegally downloaded that would usually cost $1, but the downloaders would be willing to pay at most $0.5. Then the loss is $500k, not zero or $1M.

Okay, but your exemplary assumption of 50c is probably some ways off. (I realise, of course, you didn't claim otherwise.) I'm sure many people download a lot of stuff that they would be willing to pay exactly nothing for. The same is true for application software, games, books, everything. One download just doesn't equal one missed sale at any price.

Re:What a haul...

[knightrdr]

Whether it could have or would have been legally purchased isn't the issue for them. The issue is they own the copyright on the shows and they have contractual agreements concerning how the movies should be distributed. Distribution of movies or software which aren't in the public domain is illegal in most countries. If it's not in your country, it likely will be very soon.
The rise of the corporation in this world and their subjugation of governments around the world is an issue worth debating; however, as it currently stands they hold all the leverage legally speaking.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[gowen]

I wouldn't call supporting the free flow of information purely selfish .... Big corporations try to prevent this progress

And if these people were illegally trading patented gene therapies, or copyrighted drugs, I'd support you. Yes information is necessary for progress, but not all information. The relevant information here is not the kind of knowledge that facilitates social and technological progress. No-one's civilisation is put at risk because they can't get to see "Spiderman 2".

As someone much smarter than me said

Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.

Devil's advocate...sorta...

[kiddcreole]

OK, someone in here has to play Devil's advocate and take the side of the RIAA/MPAA/etc (at least for a little bit!) Regardless of whether or not we like it, think it's fair, or intend on abiding by it, the rules say it's illegal. Same goes for speed limits. I think there are places where the speed limit that is posted is absolutely ridiculous, and (most times) I knowingly choose to ignore it and go the speed I think to be appropriate. Most times, I don't get caught, but when I do, I have no grounds to argue or complain about it. There is a law, I broke it, I need to be an adult about it and accept my punishment. That fine will determine my willingness to speed again. (It hasn't stopped me thus far! heh heh) Same goes for file sharing. If you get caught, you can bitch and complain about unfair, or technicalities but fact of the matter is there is a copyright law and if you are sharing copyrighted files you are breaking this law. As for the banter about copying rented or Netflix movies versus downloading, they are both still violation of copyright law, regardless of which is cheaper, easier, quicker, etc. Everyone just needs to admit to themselves that what they are doing is illegal and quit trying to justify it or explain it away. Now, this all being said, I agree that the laws are crazy. I also will say that they can sue people, arrest people, confiscate as many servers as they want, and the fact of the matter is, file sharing will never go away as long as we have an internet. Yesterday it was Napster. Today it's BitTorrent. Tomorrow it's ??? As long as FTP is a valid protocol, we will always be able to "share" files. And as long as I am participating in any of it, I am taking the risk of being caught...same as speeding. The post I agree with most is that rather than try to fight the beast, the powers that be should instead embrace the digital era and offer cheaper downloads, or some such. I think iTunes did a wonderful thing, and I think the MPAA should take note and follow suit. Will it stop file sharing and copyright infringement? No, but at least it's a way for them to get back some of their "losses". I would be more inclined to purchase a movie download for $5-$10 LEGALLY than to run the risk of getting caught trying to get it for free. The industries have brought this on themselves for overpricing the media we purchase (which is why they are huge money making conglomerates). If they intend on stemming the flow of copyright violation from the gaping wound of P2P file sharing, they need to make an effort to slow the flow, rather than apply a tournaquet and in doing so, have to sever the limb of interest in their material. If they can get away with successfully prosecuting the torrent site, then they also need to bring litigation against the torrent site's ISP (for allowing copyrighted material to be sent across their service), the user's ISP (for allowing the user access to the torrent site), the user (for possessing copyrighted material...this same logic applies to getting busted with a stolen VCR, even if you didn't know it was stolen), the maker of the user's network card (provides the PC access to the network, in much the same way the torrent site provides access to the shared files), the cable modem/DSL router makers (same as for the network card makers), the Bell's (for providing the backbone for the data to pass across), and the list goes on and on! There are lots of pieces involved in the transferring these files. To think that taking out the torrent hosting sites will even put a dent in stopping this from happening is naive on their part. I sincerely hope that nothing comes of the raids in Finland. I don't see how it could, but throw the right amount of power and money at anything, and you will be amazed at the results. However, at the end of the day, we are all still criminals. Shame on us.

Re:Devil's advocate...sorta...

[kiddcreole]

Apologies! I did use carriage return and had paragraphs. Didn't check preview thoroughly though.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[dknight]

I own (that is, bought, paid for, own legally) approximately 300 DVDs.

I download movies from time to time. Sometimes they're not out on DVD (yet, or ever going to be). Sometimes they are but I havent bought it yet. Sometimes they're just movies I've never seen, but dont want to risk the cash on if I dont like it.

Would you throw me in jail for that? I spend more money on DVDs every month than most people spend a year. I go to the movie theater at least once a month, usually 2-3 times.

I make the MPAA more money than any other person I know, and yet I am (as far as they're concerned) an evil pirate who should be imprisoned.

Real smart.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[jdreed1024]

Yeah. And Nelson Mandela was wrong to disobey the apartheid laws.

A bad law is a bad thing, and civil disobedience is one way to protest it.

Just one problem. Civil disobedience only works when you can tell people your side of the story, or let them see for themselves. People saw the protests, people saw the marches, people heard famous musicians like Hugh Masekela writing songs and thought "Well, huh, maybe these protestors are on to something, maybe these laws do suck."

That hasn't happened yet in the anti-DMCA world. Sure, we've seen a few articles about the 90 year-old Grandma who doesn't own a computer get sued for sharing hundreds of gangsta rap songs. But they're usually there just for a sound bite, or a brief laugh while reading the paper, and it's forgotten by the next day. And since the middle class came to the stock market in the '90s, even the average Joe is interested in companies making profits, and all the {RI,MP}AA has to do is say "pirates" and keep blanketing the media with ads portraying file swappers as the devil incarnate, and it's over.

Historically, you used to be able to write a protest song, and if it was catchy, people would remember it and might start to think about supporting your cause. Or, an aspiring film maker could make a movie about a cause, and have it gain national attention. (One good example for both types of media is the story of Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter. Bob Dylan's song gained the case national attention, and 30 years later, the movie with Denzel Washington brought it back into the spotlight. Of course, he's still in jail, so that doesn't always work, but it was a good shot). The only problem is that the protestors are up against the two organizations that completely control both types of media. Good luck getting national airtime on a song that's not marketed by the RIAA. (Satellite radio was the last hope for that, but so much for a "non-RIAA affiliated artists" channel on XM). And good luck getting national distribution with a non-MPAA distributor. Even "independent" films like Super Size Me are distributed by the large companies (in that case, Samuel Goldwyn - a re-branded arm of MGM)

I firmly believe it's going to get worse until it gets better. I think that it's going to take more crappy laws, and someone getting sued for fast-forwarding through ads on a DVD or finding out that their shiny new HDTV/VCR won't let them tape last night's American Idol because of the broadcast flag. Then it'll start to get fixed.

Two things - early access and TV

[SuperKendall]

First of all, I love Netflix myself - but no matter how much you mess with the queue you are not going to get a movie before it is released. Sometiems I like to fetch movies on DVD before they are released (even after I've watched them in theaters!) to replay a few scenes. As you say it can takea while, so I usually only do with with movies I plan to buy anyway - if I'm interested enough to download it, I'm intersted enough to buy it. They just don't make movies avaailiable as soon as they should (i.e. before pirates get them out). I wonder if the movie industry has ever considiered that it might actually boost sales to sell a DVD at the same time as the movie is in a theater - you would know pretty quickly if it was worth seeing in a theater or not, and sales might be better than otherwise. Plus of course you can always release the "directors edition" later to re-sell DVD's...

But the other good reason to use trackers is for TV shows. Here you really have no recourse, since some shows are seemingly never going to come to DVD... plus you can get HDTV versions of shows you might not be able to get using HDTV locally, or if you just can't watch it at the time it's on watch it later (how am I supposed to record HDTV today without some pretty expensive equipment?)

Especially in the case where I have already watched a show with commercials and they are not selling episodes, I have no qualms at all about downloading TV shows.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[mcc]

Those who want the law reformed need to posit credible alternatives, alternatives that ensure that movies (and music and books etc) can still be made, before arguing that there's something inherently unjust in having to pay to have access copyrighted material.

Since those who want the law enforced have yet to demonstrate that movies, music, books, etc cannot still be made if file trading continues-- at least, not justified it by way of anything except fabricated statistics-- I don't see why this is needed.

The fact that some media sources feel PR campaigns stand in for justification for government action does not shift the burden of justification onto the hands of the targets of that government action.

Meanwhile, offering viable alternatives is unlikely to do much good. The media cartels that the MPAA and RIAA represent-- which, well, I don't know much about movies, but I can tell you the RIAA is the single biggest impediment faced by someone interested in making music today, far more so than file trading could probably ever be-- are threatened far less by people using their products without paying than they are by change. The status quo of the markets they dominate are easy to manipulate, and thus easy to continue dominating. Change that status quo-- through technology like file sharing, through changes in the law or distribution models-- and you present a threat to their continued dominance. I don't see much sign they'll really differentiate between these potential threats. You will find "credible alternatives" to the current functioning of copyright law, in the unlikely chance such proposals ever get any attention, being fought by the ??AAs just as tooth and nail as current attempts to merely circumvent copyright law have been.

It will continue

[Safety Cap]

So how long will we allow these witch hunts over intellectual property to continue?

Until everyone in power who was born under the old style of brick-n-mortaring IP is dead or retired. Maybe when "IP" is not some fancy thing that make people say, "Hmm" when they read stories pertaining to it, it will be regulated to the fringe of irrelevancy where it belongs.

100 years ago, anyone trying to build their own machine that could fly was challenged by the Wright Bros' insane patent law wars. Today we laugh at the follies of our great-grandparents as we help our kids build one from scratch.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[selphish189]

"Yeah. And Nelson Mandela was wrong to disobey the apartheid laws"

how can you compare downloading movies to Nelson Mandela?

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Ocrad]

A bad law is a bad thing, and civil disobedience is one way to protest it.

I think "civil disobedience" is a misleading name. Only slaves have to obey.
When a free man does not follow a bad law, he is simply exercising his liberty.

Don't Forget Polland!

[cybrthng]

Now that we control them

errr

Now that they're our allies they are our friends!

Re:Don't Forget Polland!

[rasz]

Nope. Sharing is legal in Poland, selling and buying is not.

Too bad Shareconnector...

[dark-br]

... has already spent the money they put up (7.000 Euros) with a campaign to buy two new servers. That money would have helped with the lawer bill :/

Btw, i've donnated for the servers and they should put up another paypall account so ppl can help with the litigation costs.

Re:Too bad Shareconnector...

[Blymie]

Why?

So they can lie about being raided, and steal that money too?

Where is the _real_ proof that this money didn't just go into their pockets? Anyone remember sharereactor?

Same deal. Get donations. Then get busted. Thing is, he wasn't charged at all. Where did the money go?

I'd like a little more proof that this money hasn't just disappeared. If it has, then someone should have the site owners charged with fraud.

Which Website?

[TarrVetus]

Does anyone know the name of the website that was shut down? The article didn't appear to mention a name.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[shark72]

"incase you haven't noticed code can/is considered to be 'intellectual property'. yet for some reason so many people don't love those laws and so something weird, they *give the code away for free*.. how strange.."

Nothing wrong with that. It's your intellectual property; if you want to give it away, that's your prerogative.

It's important to understand that everybody has that right. If I have a piece of intellectual property and I want to give it away, or sell it for $0.50, or $1.00, or a million bucks, or not make it available at all, that's my right as well. Others do not have the moral right to copy it without my will because others might make their own works available for a lower price or even give it away for free. Far too many Slashdotters slide down the slippery slope of "I create or use open source software, thus I have a moral free pass to help myself to intellectual property that's not open source."

Piracy is not part of a free market economy.

Translations for parent

[upside]

"rikos" == crime
"rikkomus" == misdemeanour

The police must think they have grounds for proving this is a crime, a misdemeanour wouldn't be sufficient to warrant seizing equipment.

It isn't actually illegal (yet) for a natural person to copy material for personal use in Finland, but making it available is. This affects the users.

Secondly, the administrators were aware of and facilitating illegal activity. If you know about illegal activity and don't report it, you're alredy over the line.

The money aspect is probably the biggest issue here.

I've read suggestions that some users' machines were trojaned by a security company employed by the entertainment industry to help gather evidence. If this is true it could add an interesting spin. If this was illegal it won't nullify the evidence (as in the US) but could be very bad publicity for the entertainment industry at the very least.

Re:Translations for parent

[jks]

If you know about illegal activity and don't report it, you're alredy over the line.

This is only true for the crimes listed in Ch. 15, Sec. 10 of the Finnish Criminal Code. These are serious crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, high treason, terrorism. Copyright infringement is definitely not one of them.

Re:Translations for parent

[jks]

Are you referring to the lack of a king in Finland? While I'm no legalese expert, I do believe that "high treason" denotes not only serious crimes against a sovereign but also ones against a country. So, one way for a Finnish citizen to commit it would be to co-operate with the enemy at a time of war in order to overthrow the government. (But perhaps my translation of "maanpetos" was wrong?)

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[kokoloko]

I don't buy the "civil disobedience" argument for a second, but I don't understand your principle that someone has to contribute to the funding of a something to enjoy it. Obviously, people are free to figure out some legitimate way to profit from what they do or not, but it's not my responsibility to see that they do. If I notice that Sears is selling tires for less then they're worth, am I obligated to buy something else while I'm at the store to make sure Sears stays in business? This point has been made over and over, and I'll say it again. Technology giveth and technology taketh away; the media companies are abusing the law to maintain their (outrageous) profits in the face of the fact that they no longer have a monopoly on the means of reprodcuction and distribution of content.

Re:Why the Hatred?

[xirtam_work]

JavaLord (680960) wrote:
America invented the personal computer. . .

Oh, in that case you win every argument, hands down. I retire my slashdot posting privileges and am prepared to absorb whatever you write here in the future. Sorry to have bothered our American personal computer overlords. sheesh.

Well, duh.

[Civil_Disobedient]

Why are so uptight about this?

Because if you download high-res, commercial-free TV shows for, say a $1.00 a show, you won't be willing to shell out the $25.00 for a measly 6 episodes of the series later on.

The reason this is stupid is because it's not financially reasonable to offer DVD's for every TV show in their archive, so they just market the ones that are popular, thereby missing out huge profit potential. Oh well, until they get their shit together, torret it is.

Re:Well, duh.

[Overzeetop]

But if he had OTA reception, he could just record it, legally, and store the tape/file/disc in his personal collection.

He's getting
- A show, for free, over the internet

Because he CAN'T get
- The same show, for free, over broadcast

The only real problem is that the local TV station isn't realizing revenue from his eyeballs, which are (theoretically) located in their market. OF course, if the local TV station isn't proving QOS sufficient for his viewing, they aren't actually losing eyeballs.

So, the question remains, if you give something away to 295,000,000 people in the US, is it reasonable to claim that the remaining 5,000,000 must pay for it (or, more specifically, be denied it), based on local topography alone?

Re:Well, duh.

[teh*fink]

So, the question remains, if you give something away to 295,000,000 people in the US, is it reasonable to claim that the remaining 5,000,000 must pay for it (or, more specifically, be denied it), based on local topography alone?

finally, somebody's thinking like a lawyer. mod him up!
HINT: you could even claim...discrimination!

Re:Well, duh.

[Civil_Disobedient]

He's getting: A show, for free, over the internet, Because he CAN'T get: The same show, for free, over broadcast

I think it would be hard to convince a judge of some fundamental right to watching TV, though perhaps not as hard in the United States.

And the TV folks make a lot of their money from advertising revenue, yet ads are pretty much the first thing stripped from the torrent shows.

if you give something away to 295,000,000 people in the US, is it reasonable to claim that the remaining 5,000,000 must pay for it (or, more specifically, be denied it), based on local topography alone?

Well, yes. The stations are under no obligation to provide their services to anyone. Of course, that makes for a pretty piss-poor business model. So they concentrate their broadcasting to areas of highest concentration, because where there are more eyeballs watching, there's more advertising revenue.

The Village Voice is free in New York City, but costs everyone else hard cash. Is that fair? No, but that business model works for them. It's certainly not illegal.

Re:Well, duh.

[shotfeel]

I think it would be hard to convince a judge of some fundamental right to watching TV, though perhaps not as hard in the United States.

IIRC, its already been done. If memory serves, there was a case where some convicted criminals sued to have television made available to them in prison. I believe the mantra was denying them television was "crual and unusual" punishment.

Re:Well, duh.

[calidoscope]

The stations are under no obligation to provide their services to anyone.

The fact that they are using public airwaves does impose obligations - however the obligations extend only out to their defined service area. The issues brought up by the OP are not that different from the issues facing the early CATV (cable) providers - many of which were filling in holes for the stations service areas.

In technical terms, this is just like Napster

[br00tus]

On the design front this is just like Napster. Bittorrent trackers are a point of manual centralization on the Bittorrent network, and is obviously what these people are going after. This type of centralization is the antithesis of p2p, and is why Napster is no more while Gnutella (Limewire, Bearshare, Morpheus...) thrives.

The Bittorrent protocol certainly has a good design, and its clients like Azureus improve on this. But the centralization is a fatal flaw, especially this sort of manual centralization with trackers. What we need is a truly de-centralized protocol, incorporating the advances of Bittorrent, and getting rid of the drawbacks.

Re:In technical terms, this is just like Napster

[juergen]

But Bittorrent *is* decentralized. Sooner or later new tracker hubs will spring up, in different countries, with more anonymous management, or perhaps closed or semi-closed user groups. Contrary to napsters central servers, you can use any tracker host you can find or setup yourself.

Not that I ever download movies. Heck, I mostly go to cinemas to socialize with friends, not for the great flicks.

J.

Re:In technical terms, this is just like Napster

[tepples]

Contrary to napsters central servers, you can use any tracker host you can find or setup yourself.

Back in the later days of pirate-Napster, here was an OpenNap server as well. WinMX started out as a pirate-Napster clone for searching multiple OpenNap servers until it grew its own network.

Re:What a haul...

[instanto]

As far as I know Copyright Infringement is a civil offense and not a criminal one.

Thus it is a "infringement" and not a "crime".

[except in the US perhaps?]

Anyone with some legal insight into Finnish Copyright Law care to shed some light on this?

I would expect the Finnish people to be released and their systems returned shortly, as well as the case dropped. Might give the owner a fine, however.

Re:Downloading is not free-For Mom and Dad.

[JDevers]

"The argument is that downloading isn't free. The fact that you're paying for a connection for other purposes doesn't mean that it's free."

So, if next week I go to the gas station to fill up and while there they give me a free "no-strings-attached" Dr. Pepper it isn't really free because I had to spend money to get there, even though I was already going to the gas station for a totally unrelated transaction?

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[MrMickS]

Why won't they be able to watch the movies and listen to the music you like today? I watch movies and listen to music from my father's youth (40 years ago) with out too much problem now.

Oh I see, once the feared *AA get their way they won't let anyone listen to their music or watch their films. This will stop them being pirated. It would also drive them out of business but that won't matter if there's no piracy right?

You have just failed Logic-101. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Re:File sharing over IRC

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Yeh, I remember them as far back as 1998. Maybe one every other year since?

TV networks SELL commercials...

[NotQuiteReal]

If they GIVE away the content;

a) they need to charge the sponser for another showing of the commercial (or else the sponser is getting a freebe). Now you are in the stupid dot-com world of "clicks" to figure out how much to charge. The sponser is going to pay a lot less for a few thousand downloads vs potential millions of over-the-air viewers.

b) With the show available on the Internet, maybe there will now be less demand for it when re-run time rolls around, where the network SELLS the commercial slot AGAIN.

Bottom line - it is not free for the networks to push GB's of contentent over their bandwidth. So, what's in it for them?

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[squiggleslash]

Since those who want the law enforced have yet to demonstrate that movies, music, books, etc cannot still be made if file trading continues-- at least, not justified it by way of anything except fabricated statistics-- I don't see why this is needed.

Given those who flout the law rarely give reasons to show how the arguments in favour of copyright are "flawed", I don't see how you can argue that. Who, exactly, has shown where the tens of millions of dollars for an average movie of the type freeloaders copy are supposed to come from (and most "low budget" movies like Reservoir Dogs or Brazil usually come in at around the $5-10M mark) if not shared amongst users of the content?

Waving a hand and saying "The statistics/arguments/etc you're using are bogus" doesn't make them so. If they're bogus, or based on faith, it should be very easy to show. So far, all I see is handwaiving about entirely seperate arguments made by the RIAA or whatever concering the amount of money illegal copies lose the industry. While that's nice, and the RIAA and MPAA are fundamentally dishonest, this doesn't exactly mean that anything affecting the legitimacy of copyright itself has actually been debunked, it just means that just as there are slimeballs on the anti-copyright front, there are those on the pro-copyright side likewise.

But, if you're saying it can be done, show it. My favourite movie of all time is Terry Gilliam's Brazil, and it's low budget. Can you get a film of similar quality made for me, that can be distributed for free?

If you can't and it has something to do with copyright laws as they stand, then can you let me know how they can be reformed so you can do this? And can you show me how those reforms are better than what we have today?

The last time I asked this question, the response was that removing the ability to fund movie making was a price worth paying if copyrights were abolished. I hope you have a better answer, because from where I stand, it isn't.

there's a crucial difference

[sbma44]

Which is that everyone can run a tracker. When anyone can be a server, you can't really claim that all the negatives of centralized P2P apply. These pirate bittorrent sites run their own trackers so that they can enforce ratios, but bittorrent can be run from virtually anywhere.

The alternative is to develop fixed bittorrent clients (as suprnova has been trying to do). This is a bad idea, because it will require the formalization of the port(s) that bittorrent runs across, making BT easy to track and block. As it stands, the torrent specifies the tracker's port and the tracker manages the clients such that port agnosticism is possible. This, I think, is a big deal. The "compromise" centralized architecture of BT as it stands has a lot of merit.

Re:Why the Hatred?

[lysium]

Iraq is the "Birthplace of Civilization", and look how our country has treated it. Don't be a sanctimonious prick.

A good glossary is the base to quality

[faramir_fr]

BiTorrent glossary: BT = shot for BitTorrent .torrent file = a bookmark to a file BitTorrent server = a bookmark sharing server Most of the music I download is just for "testing" I burn it on CDR since my car stereo refuses CDRW. Most of them last less than a couple of days in my car. For some rare gems I buy the original... sometimes its quite difficult. (ie: Cara Dillon CDs only available thru Amazon UK) Music industry evolve or vanish.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[MrMickS]

No. If a law is Immoral, it is everyone's Moral Responsibility to break that law.

Why is a law immoral if it prevents people from sharing something produced by someone else without their consent. I would have said that that is a fairly moral law. The opposite, that it is right to share anything regardless of the consent of the creator, strikes me as exceedingly immoral.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Hatta]

Civil disobedience involves suffering the consequences of your action, to bring the public's attention to those consequences.

This is true of civil disobedience as a tactic to force change. This is typified in Martin Luther Kings "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" where he said:

I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

But this is not the only statement on civil disobedience. If you remember your Thoreau, he does not respect the law at all, but respects men. It's pretty clear from my reading that unjust laws are of no force whatever, and while it is good to use King's tactic, it is not required.

It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.

I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then?

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[squiggleslash]

If I notice that Sears is selling tires for less then they're worth, am I obligated to buy something else while I'm at the store to make sure Sears stays in business?

No, but I'm not sure I follow you. The argument is that you have a product, you should at least pay something towards its production (something current copyright laws attempt to compell people to do, and the fundamental argument for copyright.) That's all. In media, as long as you're paying more than the cost of the raw materials for the media, you're contributing in some way.

Note, I didn't even phrase my argument to be as extreme as current copyright laws are. I just said the point at which it becomes morally dubious is if you don't pay anything towards the production (of course, that payment may be by proxy if the producer's choice is to give it away free, but in simple terms, if I make use of an ordinary movie funded under the usual model of selling at theaters and then on DVDs etc, and finally on TV, then I think it's reasonable that somewhere along the line I should have bought something - a cinema ticket, a DVD, until it goes on TV at least.)

The Sears example suffers from several flaws. First, by buying the tire, you are contributing directly, and indirectly as Sears is contributing to you by proxy and wants to do so.) Secondly, it's a rare occurance in the movie world that paying money doesn't help pay in some way, directly or indirectly.

Copyright law has some injustices. You ought to have more rights to use content you've paid towards. The timescales involved are currently absurd. But neither really are addressed by those who want to take stuff produced in the last few years, rip it, and distribute it to millions of strangers so that they do not have to contribute a penny to the material's production.

Re:What a haul...

[pawnIII]

Not really. I just rent most of the movies I want to see. If its a big enough title, someone else in my family might buy it.

I rarely go to the theater, cause the one where I live has poor equipment and seating(been to 3 this year, which is the most I've seen in one year in a long time).

As for music. I rather just listen to the radio. Sure, there are the commercials, and I don't get to pick the playlist. Then again, I like listening to the morning DJ's here, and lately been getting access to more music I prefer over the radio. If I really like a song, I might by it on itunes, but eve thats a rare.

Fact is, I've been burnt by buying CD's. Only 2-3 songs on the album I would like, and 2-3 songs are not worth $12-18.

If the industry thinks that its going to generate billions more in cash flow cause they stopped P2P networks, than I know of a bridge they can buy for cheap.

I doubt most of the people currently sharing files over the internet will go out and buy the corresponding product. For the fact, they probably don't have the income to do so. Sure, they might make generate a small amount, but nothing like the so-called projected losses from file-sharing is estimated at.

TV Torrents-SuperID's new business.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wish that type of usage was considered "fair use" but it's not."

Of course not. However I see a business opportunity. Superid's "Did you miss something?" download service. For a small fee, you can download what you missed. Superid gets an income, especially since the IT industry is tanking. The other parties get there cut. And the consumer gets to pay for the convience of watching what they want.

Hypocrisy of slashdot

[ad0gg]

Copyright laws are bad when it comes to Music,Movies and other stuff. But Copyright is good when it comes to protecting the GPL.

Re:Why the Hatred?

[erikkemperman]

America, leading the world in math and english

Well, forgetting all about those clumsy amateurs like Euler, Gauss, Leibniz, and Turing... Thanks, I guess for the PC, lightbulb and sewing machine. But please, get a clue: America is thought of as incredibly arrogant by something like 90% of the rest of the world. Why, you wonder? Re-read your own post and you'll have an idea.

Now then, in this case it has not so much to do with "hating America" as it has to do with the fact that the bulk of the lobby against P2P is American-based. Both because a lot of the big media corps are American, but also because the *AA is a joke.

This is good

[gorbachev]

I've always maintained the entertainment cops need to go after the SOURCE, i.e. ripping groups and other wholesale distributors of pirated material.

Maybe it'll keep the RIAA stormtroopers busy from attacking 12-year-olds.

let me be the first to call BS

[va3atc]

I would download them in a heartbeat and gladly watch their commercials if they did this

Quite unlikely...
There will be a bunch of cracks for their DRM'd software that will allow you to skip the commericals.....Too tempting.
Pay? haha, yeah one time viewing & if its Star Trek will be like five bucks an episode.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[fimbulvetr]

I suppose you would have protested the Sons of Liberty in 1773, when they dumped 45 tons of tea into the Boston Harbor.

HELLO, the world is not black and white you know!

[Carrot007]

Bah, reading most of the post on here it seems most people think of the world as a black and white place.

Come on time to grow up.

The RIAA (and sympathisers) sees things one way. The anti RIAA another.

This is narrow thinking.

The world is not a black and white place, there are many shades of grey.

<dagnamhippy>
Maybe if we learn to give and take the grey can become a rainbow
</dagnamhippy>

Re:What a haul...

[plague3106]

Yeah but you must admit, without an alternative you would be more likely to buy it.

No, withouth that alternative, I wouldn't be listening to music period. Its just not worth $18 for a music CD (and no, i couldn't give two shits about the cds artwork etc. If i buy a cd its to listen to it, thats it), especially considering a DVD is 20-30.

Re:What a haul...

[plague3106]

Using the same logic that you just did, there's nothing inherently wrong with stealing anything. You didn't pay for it, so it has no value...

I think part of the equation of no value is that music CAN be reprocuded with zero cost, thus is no longer rare. So by copying the cd you are not depriving the original owner of anything, but steal a car and you would be.

Re:Verkon non.

[fimbulvetr]

That's what I was thinking!

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[MassacrE]

Abandonware. Look it up.

You can still listen to all the one hit wonders from the 80s, but try to go buy a few of their albums today. There is not enough profit in selling them, the original distributed media is reaching the end of its lifetime, but random people still will not be able to legally duplicate and redistribute them for a few more decades. I'd be interested in your argument that says the complete death of these artistic works is somehow in the public good (all kidding of artistic quality aside).

Re:Why the Hatred?

[henni16]

/packs this post in asbestos
Well, not to fuel the flames, but to give my 2 cents about your list of American inventions:

• personal computer: yes, likely
• computer: depends on your definition of computer..probably not
• light bulb: certainly not
• sewing machines: didn't know shit about their invention, but it seems that they weren't an American invention

Not-A-Flame-More-A-PSA:
One thing that Non-USAsians don't like about some Americans is a sometimes met "Pavel Chekovish"-attitude "everything cool must be an American invention".
I remember that high school exchange student from Italy that was asked "do you have pizza in Italy?".. ;-)

They're not attacking BitTorrent

[KalvinB]

They're going after people who supply illegal torrents. So yes, they're going to win a lot a lawsuits.

BitTorrent has many legal uses. Illegal trackers have exactly one, thouroughly illegal purpose. And those who host them have control over hosting them. It's not a common carrier issue. People who host illegal trackers are directly and deliberatly assisting people in a crime. It's not "just a pointer." If I started going around telling people very publically where to go buy drugs I'd get myself arrested. A pointer is telling people where the gas station is. A criminal pointer is advertising and assisting in finding and aquireing illegal goods.

I don't know where people get this rediculous idea that going after people who publish illegal trackers is an attack on BitTorrent itself. It's not illegal to tell people where the gas station is and nobody pushing these cases is pretending it is.

I guess it just makes it all the more sensational though when people say they are.

Re:They're not attacking BitTorrent

[Cramer]

Knowing where to buy illegal drugs is not against the law. And technically, telling someone this information is also not against the law. However, it can be argued that doing so is "aiding and abetting" which makes you an accessory to a crime. It's the same argument that gets gun dealers "questioned"... one cannot (legally) sell someone a gun knowing they're going to (imminently) commit a crime with it. It's a legal grey area as just about everything ever made can, in some fashion, be used to break numerous laws. (What's the point of making cars that can go 120+ mph when the max. speed anywhere in the country is 75? The car maker is "aiding and abetting" my speeding crimes.)

The tracker itself, having no copyright'd content, is not breaking any laws in most parts of the world.

copyrights and payments

[xonen]

At this moment, the situation in my country (netherlands) is like this:

Common TV broadcast stations are payed by public money. In past, you paid only if you had television/radio set. Now, it is included in taxes. So, on a yearly base i pay about 70-100 euro for television.

To actually watch television, one must pay cable company about 16 euro/month for 15 lousy TV channels (yes, the channels i actually would like to see are not included, add another 10-15 euro). To safe some money, i decided stopping this cable abbo. I can fetch 1 (sometimes 2) public TV channels out of the air (while I pay for three by taxes!).

To make it worse, Monthly i pay about 20,= for taxes on blank DVD's (yes, 1 euro / DVD) just to get my backups done. No illegal content here.

So, on an annual base, i pay around 350 euro for their copyrights. For television i don't watch. For having data i want to backup.

It is this duality: you pay taxes (on CD/DVD) because they find it likely you are going to put illegal content on your media. But at the same time, you are not allowed to do so.

So, no wonder majority of people have no moral problems downloading some tv show or movie now and then.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[gowen]

'No-one's civilisation is put at risk because they can't get to see "Spiderman 2".'

So if it's not important at all,

I didn't say it wasn't important at all. That's just a non sequitor.

It's a criminal act to distribute this information, because the right of distribution is reserved by the creator. In the case when the information is important, a case could be made that the public good outweighs the rights of the creator; when the information is basically inconsequential, then the public good is not an issue, so creator's rights are paramount.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[MrMickS]

The solution to this would be to have a clause in the copyright registration that requires the copyright holder to ensure that the material remains available in whatever the current distributed media is. A failure to do so would result in a lapse of the copyright.

That said this is likely to be less and less of an issue in the future where making music available is as simple as providing storage space and entries in a database.

I lived through the 80s music scene. There is a lot of music that has deservedly been forgotten.

Re:What a haul...

[Technician]

America likes to make that every single song, movie or piece of software would have been legally purchased if they had not been illegally downloaded

I've taken another route that the **AA and BSA can do absolutely nothing about. I simply look for Creative Commons, open source and free software. I'm getting started in Lighting. I am following the open DMX project and it's associated free software. I started looking to free software after getting hooked on Mozilla Firefox and Open Office.

It's true that not everyting is free, but supporting free helps it grow where piracy helps nobody but the pirate. On the Open USB to DMX project, they are offering the completed manufactured device for less than I can build it myself. They provide schematics and the software code for free. I'm ordering several because the device has lots of 3rd party support both commercial and free. Even advanced computer lighting consoles with a large inventory of moving head lights is supported.

The movement is catching on. There were several (still are) propirtory methods to send DMX (lighting control signals) over Ethernet. Most were quite expensive. A wireless link to send DMX over Ethernet wirelessly by one manufacture is about $7000.

Artistic Licence opened up their DMX over Ethernet protocol to the public domain. It's called ArtNet. Now to do the same type wireless control, all you need is a couple off the shelf D-Link wireless access points. Artistic Licence even provides a how to in there FAQ's. Needless to say, Artnet is now becomming the defacto DMX over Ethernet solution.

The open USBDMX dongle is becomming the defacto winner in the USB to DMX hardware department with the most 3rd party support. Enttec was first to market and now have backlog of orders, even though they provide the schematic and software for free.

Info in open USB to DMX is here;
http://www.enttec.com/dmxusb.php

There is nothing Martin or other manufactures can do about it. It's not piracy. The best thing they can do is get on board. Light Factory is selling their software and even sell the Enttec interface. Enttec makes the dongle and is a distributor for LightFactory. They have a great Christmas special on right now. Enttec does not try to lock you into anybody's software. I can use Freestyler, DMX Control, Mandolator, Simple 16, or other software instead. LightFactory does not lock you into the Enttec interface. You have a choice among many DMX adaptors. You can even output ArtNet directly from you PC using your existing Ethernet card if you wish and use one of many ArtNet to DMX boxes out there at the other end of your LAN. Even doing a Wireless link is no longer expensive.

info on Artnet is here;
http://www.enlightenment.co.uk/frames/prod/ al/s-ar tnet.htm
Light Factory information;
http://www.enttec.com/lightfactory.p hp

The days of buying an adaptor and being locked into that manufactures software or the other way around with hardware is over. Some manufactures with a buggy whip business model will soon feel the pressure of market forces.

In summary.. Don't do the piracy thing. Go open. Support artists that provide legal free open downloads. Don't pirate the rest of their album.
It's legal and good for everyone except the buggy whip manufactures.

Why people settle

[paranode]

Sure, you may still end up paying a couple of hundred bucks, but that's far better than the few thousand I've read about.

You forget about the popular "blood-sucking leech lawyer" expense. ;)

Re:Downloading is not free-For Mom and Dad.

[killmenow]

So, if next week I go to the gas station to fill up and while there they give me a free "no-strings-attached" Dr. Pepper it isn't really free because I had to spend money to get there, even though I was already going to the gas station for a totally unrelated transaction?

I reply because this is a pet peeve of mine. If the Dr. Pepper is contingent on you buying gas, it is not free. If they are handing out Dr. Peppers to any shmuck who walks in the door, no purchase required, then it could truly be called "no-strings-attached" and then I'd say, yes, it's free.

However, if ANY money is required to change hands as a condition of the "giveaway" then it is NOT free. You are paying for it. The cost of the item is built in. If you have to buy gas, you are not getting a free Dr. Pepper...you are getting a Dr. Pepper bundled with your gas. It's a package deal.

And that, sir, is not free (as in gratis).

Re:What a haul...

[The Snowman]

Well, it doesn't really matter in that the people were willing to download the movies, songs, or software rather than pay the known retail price for them. They knew they were downloading something with a known retail value, and that it was illegal.

This is the crux of the issue -- people were stealing copyrighted material. Notice that the police did not raid people's homes that develop BitTorrent clients, but the ones actually downloading protected content.

I find it refreshing to see content owners going after people stealing their content, rather than causing excessive collateral damage from attacking BitTorrent itself. If a server hosts trackers for protected content, its operators deserve to pay the price. If a server hosts trackers for Linux distros, for example, Hollywood should leave them the hell alone, to include leaving BitTorrent itself alone.

Re:Nice

[swilver]

Yes, of course it is the US that is to blame. The movies are created there, why would Finnish people even care about lost profits in the US unless there was somekind of external pressure?

to pay for a product

[VanillaCoke420]

I have no problems with paying for products, so I download music. What I like, I buy, and what I don't like I delete. More of my money goes to the artists whose works I like, and less on gambling at the record store.

Re:to pay for a product

[/dev/trash]

Yeah ;) Me too ;)

I know this is an unpopular sentiment here...

[nwbvt]

But if they can locate and take action against those engaging in the illegal behavior (and by all accounts I've heard, that includes these guys) while leaving the legitimate uses of the service alone, more power to them. I always here people critizing various industries like the MPAA and RIAA for trying to destroy P2P technology which does have legitimate uses, but practices like this leave the legit uses alone.

Re:What a haul...

[dhakbar]

Pirates merely exploit the same characteristic of "intellectual property" that Media Moguls do: production costs are trivial.

Damn straight. I hope people mod you up and shame on the idiot who modded you troll.

Only problem - whcih commercials?

[SuperKendall]

I like the train of thought, I too wish networks would offer shows for download - complete with commercials. I like watching some commercials anyway, and it would be better for them than people downloading toreents with commercials edited out.

However the problem would be which commercials to include - as shows usually have a mix of commercials both national and local. I suppose the answer might be to offer torrents for download on affiliate websites instead of national, but it would increase the burden on them and be a lot of work.

Still, I think the potential benefits of drumming up a lot of support for a TV show that people might not otherwise watch would be great. If they offered the show for download a day after it aired they would still get people watching broadcast, and the ability to download might well draw more people into watching something in an otherwise bad timeslot.

And people would STILL buy the DVD collections, which is I'm sure the other thing on networks minds when considering offering downloads of shows.

Re:Only problem - whcih commercials?

[Afrosheen]

The types of commercials included in the download could be advertisements for ISP's and other internet-related companies. The companies advertising could be donating bandwidth and torrent farms to distribute content. This way local affiliates lose nothing and the bandwidth is paid for.

Furthermore they're the ones doing the distribution, so they could arrange various models to generate revenue. They could stagger download releases to make them a few days later than the aired shows and create a fileplanet-style paid login to get shows faster, earlier, etc.

The only thing missing from this whole debacle is foresight on the part of the networks. But then again, huge monopolies have NEVER been known to be quick to move or smart in planning when faced with something as potentially damaging as this. They generally wait until things 'get bad' then sic their lawyers on everyone.

If content creators and distributors would work together on making internet delivery feasible and affordable, they would make alot more money.

Re:Only problem - whcih commercials?

[shotfeel]

How about, you just have everyone download from their local mirror site which has placed local commercials in the files or streams?

Personally, I'd like to be able to view and/or download a stream over broadband while the show is being broadcast over the air.

Re:Only problem - whcih commercials?

[Garak]

Actually they could require you to register before downloading the torrent. Then they could direct you to a torrent with advertizements for your area or interest. Kind of like google ads for TV. I'd love to see ad's for things I'm interested and no more maxipad and tampon commerials would be great.

Re:Why the Hatred?

[j0e_average]

Reminds me of Life of Brian...

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Re:Downloading is not free-For Mom and Dad.

[JDevers]

But the cost of the item is built into the NEXT DR PEPPER I would buy, not the gas, unless the store itself is sponsoring the giveaway and they don't want to compete with the neighboring gas stations in price.

I agree in principle though, however, that has nothing to do with the poster I replied to who said that downloading movies isn't free because we already pay for the pipe with which to do it.

Re:What a haul...

[plague3106]

That's the problem; prices are going up, not down. Should 40 year old CDs still cost $25? Don't think so, but they do.

I could not be buying the cd for several reasons, not just that I think its too expensive. Downloading it indicates that yes there is a demand, but no, not at 18 a pop.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

A few. The network is over a year old, and functional. I've even heard rumors of other metanets out there.

Interesting

[brsmith4]

There is a lot of flaming going on here about the ethics of downloading these movies, etc, and not a lot of discussion about the implications of stated events. You might think that I'm one of those tin foil hat guys, but lets be serious.

The problem as the RIAA/MPAA sees it, with regards to file sharing, is not that you are depriving them of profits or that you have broken copyright law. They take issue with the fact that long-term use of file sharing to distribute their media will curtail their plans for purely subscription based services.

The RIAA, MPAA, cable companies, and other media companies are looking towards subscription based services where you are locked into a particular service. Right now, we have to pay a subscription fee to watch cable television. Its a steady, consistent form of income for the companies providing the service. The RIAA and MPAA would LOVE to migrate to subscription based services. Netflix and others are the beginning of this. Eventually, instead of getting DVDs in the mail, you will simply be able to punch it up on your TV for a monthly fee without the ability to copy it. Without an actual physical medium to distribute the content, copying becomes more difficult.

The real problem lies with the fact that a company (MPAA) can make a threat, and half way around the world a police force raids some place and arrests 30 people for an offence that is actually a civil matter, not a criminal one. The fact that the police and government forces are butting into civil matters is extremely frightening. It is one more nail in the coffin for civil rights and for freedom.

Call me crazy, but to me, this is the same thing as being arrested for slander. Sure, the person that I have slandered has every right to take me to court and work to receive compensation for my lies. But what right does the government have to come in and arrest you for it? There is a big difference between a civil offence and a criminal offence. It is a line that must be well defined in order to preserve individual liberties.

It is impossible to kill file sharing

[Crag]

It is no more possible to stop file sharing activities than it is to end drug trade, prostitution, or running moonshine.

Alochol was legalized in the US because enforcing the laws made the mob and crooked officials rich, and because the laws effects on people were not to cause them to stop drinking, but to change when, where, and how they drank.

Keeping these other things illegal is wasteful. Enforcing these laws doesn't help the 'victims' or the 'criminals', and in some cases makes things worse.

More specifically:

Artists do not get more money from RIAA/MPAA prosecution of traders (the lawers might). Crack babies aren't helped or prevented by The Drug War. Neighborhoods do not clean up from the police putting a bunch of hookers and johns in jail.

But to answer your question, there is nothing that 'legitimate' file traders need to do. It can't be stopped. It's just a matter of time before the current social system crumbles before the mighty wheels of the next version.

Yeah, yeah...

[absurdist]

I saw that commercial too, the last time I went to the movies. And like someone else on here said earlier, I was wondering "WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU TELLING ME THIS WHEN I"M ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO"S ACTUALLY PAYING TO SEE YOUR CRAPPY MOVIE?"

Re:If the RIAA were smart, here's what they'd do.

[Wizzar]

Last I checked, Blizzard was using Bittorrent to distribute patches for their MMORPG, World of Warcraft. That sounds like a legal use to me.

the big picture and the little guy

[poptones]

I download shows too. I don't get UPN because I don't have an HD tuner card yet and it's only HD where I live (UPN is a sidecar on the local CBS affiliate). Enterprise is right at the top of my weekly download list - right next to West Wing and American Dreams.

But if you want to know "who gets hurt" I have no problem explaining that: the local broadcaster is the one hurt. In my case this is an outright act on my part because I cannot stand the local stations, so I do what I can to go around them.

Networks don't offer direct downloads because this would take away ad revenue from your local affiliate. If your local affiliate can't get ad revenue then they can't stay on the air. You may not have a problem downloading stuff, but what about grandma? If the station goes dark, grandma loses her Y&R. It's the same reason you can't get ABC over a dish if the local ABC affiliate says you can get their signal.

And, in my case they did exactly that when I had a sat, in spite of the fact I cannot get ABC at all even with a rooftop antenna, the CBS affiliate often doesn't run shows and even interrupts shows right in the middle with ad placements, and the NBC affiliate is stuck on 1970s equipment and refuses to improve even to a stereo audio channel.. I say screw'em all. But I don't do this silently - I've written all my stations repeatedly informing them of what I do and why I do it. I don't see a problem with breaking laws that need to change to reflect our evolving society, but you gotta be willing to speak out and act toward that change.

Re:the big picture and the little guy

[JaxGator75]

You can justify you thievery any way you want, but you're still a dirty, rotten, fushing FIEF !!! You deserve to die in prison alongside rapists, murderers and pot smokers for stealing those transmissions.

Ethical/Moral Issues aside...

[cl0secall]

...I found the Register's characterization of the MPAA Amusing. Quote the article:

"The Motion Picture Ass. of America (MPAA)"

'course that may be old news by now.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[ExMember]

My favourite movie of all time is Terry Gilliam's Brazil, and it's low budget. Can you get a film of similar quality made for me, that can be distributed for free?

I loved Brazil also. And you are right, without copyright laws that movie would probably not have been made. But that does not imply copyright laws are just, only that they have positive consequences.

So the question becomes what's more important, freedom or entertainment? My, we've come a long way from "give me liberty or give me death".

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Realistic_Dragon]

They involve breaking the unjust parts of laws that are clearly unjust to begin with.

For example, using the image of Micky mouse without permission to plaster the city with posters about how long copyright law should be, or handing out DVDs of 20+ year old films in a public place that should bt freely redistributable were the law fair.

Downloading the latest hollywood crap doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

Re:Nice

[daveschroeder]

So the "US" is to blame simply because the movies are created here?

I have a solution:

Don't download them, and don't watch them. Problem solved.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[TJ6581]

Yeah. And Nelson Mandela was wrong to disobey the apartheid laws.

Are you retarded? I cannot believe that you just compared getting the last episode of Buffy to a fight against being held in virutal slavery. Seriously get some perspective. You can download all the illegal MPs, 0 day warez and pre-release movies you want but please free youself of the delusion that you "fight the good fight". You may not think it's stealing and you may not believe in giving the MPAA any of your money but you are not George Washington, Ghandi or Mandela. You are a Pirate. Get over it and enjoy your movie.

Re:What a haul...

[Goobermunch]

Actually, I think the calculation of value is based on fair market value. That means the calculation is based on what you'd pay to legally purchase the product.

The fact that folks who illegally download music probably wouldn't buy it if given the chance isn't really much of a distinction. Folks who steal cars probably wouldn't buy them if given the chance either.

That's the whole point of downloading it illegally, right?

--AC

Re:What a haul...

[wheany]

You can copy pretty much anything for your own personal use, but you may not distribute it. Software is an exception. You may not copy software.

For example you can loan a CD or a DVD from a library and rip it to your own machine, and even make some limited number of copies for you and your family.

IIRC, there are some amendmends in the works, like the source material must be legal for your copy to be legal. Also, bypassing copy protection may become illegal.

Not that I have actually verified any facts...

Re:What a haul...

[hb253]

I agree that CD's are overpriced. However, you cannot say it costs NOTHING to produce them. There are many costs that come into play including:

• the salaries/benefits of the people who work for the record companies.
• the cost of machinery and materials to produce and package CDs.
• cost of warehousing and shipping
• the costs of unsold inventory

And I'm sure there are many other items I've omitted.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[IthnkImParanoid]

Those who want the law reformed need to posit credible alternatives

Problem: In order for a law to be effective in a free society the law must have legitimacy; that is, the citizens must believe the law benefits society. Copyright law has lost much of its legitimacy and, not surprisingly, is not being obeyed by the public. This is not a new development caused by the ease of committing copyright infringment with digital media and the internet, but rather a problem that is coming to a head because of those things.

Solution: The solution is to restore legitimacy to copyright law. To do that the law must be balanced once again between the desires of creators and the benefit to society. Initially, copyright law provided for 14 years of exclusive distribution rights in a time when creation, publication, and distribution where, in general*, more difficult. Therefore, a copyright term of less than 14 years can arguably allow creators to seek compensation** while demostrating to the citizens that corporations are no longer in control. If the citizens are convinced that this law is in their best interests in the long term copyright infringement will no longer be rampant.

*Books and music(written and recorded) are easier to create and visual media is not, but that difference in creation cost is made up by pricing.
**They might not get it! The goal of a reformed copyright law should be to give them time to seek, not to guarantee, income.

I find it hard to accept there's any civil disobedience here

You are correct, but for the wrong reason. Civil disobedience is publicly breaking a law you feel is unjust in such a way as to invite the consequences of your actions upon you.

and the hatred spewed by the same idiots who like P2P against those who make the efforts to formulate alternatives

I'm sure many people who like P2P also like Stallman. Firstly, just because someone's personal hygiene or oratory style are mocked doesn't mean their ideas aren't respected (how many times have you heard someone make fun of Einstein's hairdo?) and secondly, Slashdot isn't a person, so unless you've correlated posts by the same members demonizing stallman and advocating P2P this assertion is without merit.

Re:Wireless Access Defense...

[Audigy]

That is no defense at all. I know my ISP has a clause in their AUP (acceptable-usage policy) that states that the customer is responsible for all activity that happens on their connection, and is responsible for securing any wireless connections. Nice try, might've worked a few years ago, but many ISPs are wise to this now.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[CleverNickedName]

No. If a law is Immoral, it is everyone's Moral Responsibility to break that law.

Copyright law isn't immoral, it's just inconvenient. To suggest that copying of a piece of work without paying for it somehow gives you the moral high ground is laughable.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!

[bbc]

Copyright law does not restrict itself to worthwhile creations. Whether a creation is worthwhile is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

Re:What a haul...

[geekee]

"Yeah, we are back to the assumption that Corporate America likes to make that every single song, movie or piece of software would have been legally purchased if they had not been illegally downloaded. Obviously that is false, but it makes the "losses sufferred" sound really impressive."

Yes, Corporate America also has this outrageous notion of quantifying shoplifting losses at their retail price, making the assumption that shoplifters would actually have bought the stuff if they couldn't steal it.

Can we even call it piracy?

[tc3driver]

Piracy was initially adapted to people who copied music/movies to sell for profit, thus pirating.

but the P2P networks, mainly the BT ones now days, are trying to profit with adds on the page, none that I know of charge for access to links. The people uploading the torrents are not profiting on the torrent, if anything they are losing money because of the BW used.

the only ones that can profit from the actual sharing is down loader who can then burn to cd or dvd, and then sell them on e bay.

in reality, the BT sites shouldn't even be a target, the up loaders should be the target, as the BT sites rarely host the actual files being downloaded.

in any case it is all bs, give me a product worth paying for, and I will pay for it.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[bbc]

"No matter how stupid the P2P laws are, it is good when they are enforced. It is not anyone's right to break the law, no matter how silly the law is."

There is no P2P law.

"And I bet you would just love intellectual property laws if you had any intellectual property."

Anybody who posts here has "intellectual property", just to borrow your intellectually challenged phrase.

That's for the explanation of finnish law

[autopr0n]

Who would have guessed that there'd be an expert in finish law here, making one of the first few posts.

Speaking of illegal file trading...

[B1gP4P4Smurf]

Check out the top sourceforge downloads for the week.

Of the top 10, 7 are file sharing apps commonly associated with illegal trading of movies. Then you have VirtualDub and CDex, for ripping DVDs and CDs respectively. Rounding out the top 10 is gaim.

Is it only a matter of time before the MPAA comes after Sourceforge?

And does anyone else find it depressing that trading copyrighted works seems to be by far the most popular use for open source software?

Re:Speaking of illegal file trading...

[cqnn]

Correction, VirtualDub is a video capture and
editing tool. It is not for ripping DVDs, respectively or otherwise.

The reason virtualdub is probably in the top
ten right now is because a new version of
the experimental branch was just released.

Re:Speaking of illegal file trading...

[B1gP4P4Smurf]

Sorry, you're right, it's not a ripper. But VirtualDub is often used in the edit/encode process.

But, my point remains valid. Look at the top 5. All P2P clients. If something like the INDUCE act were to pass then it sure looks like they could come after SourceForge.

Re:Downloading is not free-For Mom and Dad.

[autopr0n]

However, if ANY money is required to change hands as a condition of the "giveaway" then it is NOT free. You are paying for it. The cost of the item is built in. If you have to buy gas, you are not getting a free Dr. Pepper...you are getting a Dr. Pepper bundled with your gas. It's a package deal.

Way to miss the point. The guy was obviously talking about a free dr. pepper. to anyone who walked in the door, which you could see if you'd parsed his comment carefully.

Re:What a haul...

[crabpeople]

"They knew they were downloading something with a known retail value, and that it was illegal."

yeah well smoking weed is illegal in some places too. so what? would you rather do whats legally right, or morally right. thats the issue. do we want a society where we have to pay for the privilege of viewing art, or should artists be happy that they are able to create and do it for love of the creation. You think all art will stop if people dont get paid? manufactured art is never better than people who do it for the love. what happened to you man - it used to be about THE MUSIC.

what kind of society do you want to live in. a society where new technology progresses mankind to a state of equality; or a society where a few people with gold plated shark tanks rule us all in a corporate feudal system.

Re:What a haul...

[LurkerXXX]

I take it you don't make a living my making music or writing software. Didn't think so.

They have a right to charge for their work if they want to. Just because they made it, that doesn't give you a right to it.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[gNukkekAalosj]

Those who want the law reformed need to posit credible alternatives, alternatives that ensure that movies (and music and books etc) can still be made, before arguing that there's something inherently unjust in having to pay to have access copyrighted material

If what you mean by "Credible alternatives" are ways that ensure that the same old drivel will be produced, and distributed through the same channels in the same form then alternatives is hardly the appropriate word.

If you are really interested in why there is no reason why the generation and dissemenation of ideas, including in the form of movies and music does not have to involve draconian enforcement of legaly induced scarcity, I suggest you read:

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/pci23.pdf

for starters....

A statement from a Finn

[ultranova]

As a citizen of the Republic of Finland, I have to say that I would feel a lot safer if the police would concentrate on catching real criminals (murderers, rapists, thiefs, muggers) and public nuisances (drunk drivers) who harm real people instead of going after a bunch of nerds whose only crime is that they may have lowered the potential profits of some media corporations by an undefinied amount.

The police is hopelessly underfunded and understaffed as it is. They should be thankfull that someone is sitting in the front of their computer playing a warezed game, as opposed to driving over little children while drunk.

Yes, I'm annoyed; it's my tax money that's being wasted here.

Re:A statement from a Finn

[hexi]

I live in a large student flat where a few of these people lived too so I've had to discuss and follow this story as it happened. There are many people who are very angry at the police for doing these arrests. What would you like the police to do? Break the law by not enforcing it? I think the only thing we can learn about this that the laws might need a bit adjusting. Some people have compared the sums of money that people, who have been caught pirating, have had to pay to those people, who have been caught swapping child porn. They do raise a good point. Is copyright really more important than other types of crime? If you really don't think so, you should blame our elected law makers and work to change them or at least there opinions. Blaming the police in this case is wrong. Although the rumours about police dropping backdoors and spying on irc channels don't sound very good.

BTW I wouldn't think that the police have eavesdropped on irc channels. Why wouldn't they just get the logs from somebody who thinks that will lower the penalties?

Re:Nice

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

I don't do either, I actually buy my movies that I want to see.

As far as the Bush/Ashcroft thing, I don't see how thay have anything to do with it. They are corporate puppets as well.

I bet, though, if you follow the money trail for the Finnish MPAA you'll see a large portion of the funds are (directly or not) traceable to the US MPAA entity. I don't see any evidence to support any other explanation.

Whoa...

[katharsis83]

You're equating America's struggle for independence with the right to download "Gigli" from Supernova?

Somehow I think there's a difference.

Re:Whoa...

[Suicyco]

Wasn't America's struggle for independance about wealthy aristocrats not wanting to pay taxes that they were supposed to pay, as ordered by their government?

Re:Why the Hatred?

[thedarkstorm]

Not to be nit-picky, but ... what the heck. The light-bulb was most certainly an American invention:
Heinrich Göbel emigrated to the US in 1849, he didn't build the first lightbulb until 1854. So technically he *was* an American at that point.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Heinri ch %20G%F6bel

The Register Has It Correct

[cpuenvy]

"The Motion Picture Ass. of America (MPAA)"

Perhaps this is the new way to refer to them, and we should all jump on board.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[filtur]

No. If a law is Immoral, it is everyone's Moral Responsibility to break that law.

Who's to judge what's Immoral? Goverment? Religious police? Freeloaders? Geeks? etc. etc.

Re:What a haul...

[GimmeFuel]

Retail price != Value

By your theory, I could make a CD of absolutely shitty music, slap a $1 million price tag on it, and arrange for the CD to be mysteriously "leaked" onto P2P networks. If 10 people then download my CD, can I claim losses of $10 million? Should each one of those 10 "thieves" be sued for the $1 million they "stole" from me?

Now, in this case, the obvious argument would be that $1 million is an insane price for a CD. Well, I say, so is $20. Where do you draw the line between a fair price and an insane price? $100? $1,000? Where?

That distinction cannot be determined by the courts or by the record label. Fair market price can only be determined by a fair market. With $20 CDs, we are seeing hordes of people reject that price as too high and opt to get it for free instead. Not everyone who downloads it would have bought it at $20, which is why these estimations of "loss" are such bullshit. The record labels saying that the people they just busted were responsible for millions of dollars of infringement is no different than me saying that the 10 people who downloaded my CD instead of paying $1 million means I lost $10 million.

Re:Wireless Access Defense...

[Big_Breaker]

The ISP's AUP has no impact on a criminal or civil case brought by the MPAA.

Picture this: You just asserted your defense that a malicous person used your exposed wireless internet to download movies. The prosecutor realises he has you and announces, "But you signed an AUP with Time Warner Cable saying that you WOULDN'T SHARE that connection. Your honor, the prosecution RESTS!"

Agreeing with a third party not to do something through a civil contract has no baring on whether or not you can claim to have performed that same prohibited act as part of a criminal or civil defense. Sure Time Warner has an ironclad case to terminate your service, but that isn't a big deal.

Re:What a haul...

[nordi]

I'm sure many people download a lot of stuff that they would be willing to pay exactly nothing for.

If it does not have any value for you, then why are you downloading it, investing your time, bandwidth and diskspace? It must have some value for you, however small, which means you would be willing to pay money for it. Maybe just 1 cent, but there is a value.

What the music industry failed to do is to enter this market segment and try to make revenue by selling songs for 1 cent over the internet to the kind of people that would otherwise download them.

Re:What a haul...

[LurkerXXX]

The asking price is the value as far as the law is concerned.

So you like stealing music eh? Maybe you shoplift too. Suppose the store lists the price of a sweater at $100. You like the sweater, but decide it's only worth $15 to you, so you are just going to steal it. The store didn't actually pay $100 for the sweater, they bought it from a wholesaler for $40. When the cops arrest you, do they charge you for stealing a $15 item? No. Do they charge you for stealing a $40 item? No. They charge you what the asking/going rate for that item. $100.

Oh, but you are just 'copying' software you say. That's not stealing you say (yes it is, you are stealing the right of the person who made it to decide who should have the right to use the product they produced). So let's look at software. Photoshop might only be worth $10 in your estimation, because it's just a little easier to use than the Gimp, so that justify's the $10 price in your mind over 'free'. But Adobe wants $500! So you just download it for free off some p2p site. What is Adobe going to go after you for? Stealing $500. That's their asking price for their product. That's the way the law works. Deal with it.

If you don't want to pay for music or software, don't. More power to you. There's lots of free art and software out there, you are free to get that. Get your art/software from someone who makes it for free. No one is stopping them from making art/software for free. No one is stopping you from using BSD/GPL/etc software or free music.Go for it.

However, if someone decides they want to charge for their art, that is THEIR choice, not yours. Maybe they think their art is better than other peoples and is worth more. Maybe they just want to profit from it so that they can do their art full time, rather than having to get a 'regular job' to put food on the table and a roof over their head and only doing their art part-time in their spare time. Maybe they want to get rich. Either way, it is THEIR choice what to do with their art, not yours. Just because thay produced it, that doesn't give you a right to it.

If someone prices their music or software rediculously high in your estimation, DON'T BUY IT! But that does NOT give you the right to download it and get charged with taking something of a lesser value because it is worth less to you personally

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[bbc]

"As the grandparent suggested, you have almost certainly never been involved in the creation of anything that can be pirated."

And what is this an argument for/against? What are you trying to say with it?

Add a robbery tax to every car sold

[gtkuhn]

Kinda like that tax on Canadian blank media mentioned earlier. Then, the money could be distributed not just to record labels, but to all the major corps to offset losses from thefts in which cars were used. And if little "mom and pop" liquor stores aren't part of the big corporate cartel then too bad for them.

obligatory funny from the article:

[runamok1]

excerpt from the article:

The Motion Picture Ass. of America (MPAA) today announced (PDF) that it is pursuing civil actions against hundreds of server operators of BitTorrent, eDonkey and DirectConnect P2P file-swapping networks, in its war on internet movie piracy.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[m50d]

I don't. I'm just using that as an example to make the point that whether or not you should do something does not depend on whether it's legal.

Re:What a haul...

[moonbender]

Because there is a difference of quality, not only of quantity, between paying nothing and paying something. For the same reason, I prefer a flat fee internet service over one based on the time surfed - even if the latter would almost certainly cost me less. If I can download for free, there really is no reason to do it, if I have to pay a cent, I have to justify it - although, admittedly, one cent doesn't take a lot of justifying. Still, it'd feel different, I guess.

Re:On Tape but off topic

[Zondar]

And so was the overhead FLIR tapes of automatic weapons fire from OUTSIDE the building, firing into the kitchen area (in the back, away from view of the news cameras).

This tape was shown during presentations to Congress (the board doing the investigation, I believe), and the source was the govt's own chopper circling overhead.

The reasoning the govt gives for the flashes of light seen on the FLIR? Sunlight reflected from debris.

Anyone who knows how FLIR works knows that sunlight reflecting off of a piece of small debris, sitting on the ground 10,000 feet below a helicopter in a slow orbit, is not going to create tight-point hotspots which also happen to pulse several times a second, then pause, then pulse several more times a second. If it were a light-sensitive instead of a heat-sensitive camera, perhaps... but the sun glinting off of a perfect mirrored object on the ground that far up isn't going to create enough radiant heat to show up that hot on a FLIR camera. Just not possible.

Go view the tape for yourself. The program is called "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120472/, and has been shown on The History Channel several times.

A quick search on Google brings the following review:
http://www.waco93.com/washingtonweekly.htm

Re:If the RIAA were smart, here's what they'd do.

[eofpi]

They aren't going after BitTorrent itself though, so the "substantial noninfringing uses" part of the Betamax verdict wouldn't apply, even if this was in the US (as the sig says, IANAL though). They're going after sites that aggregate .torrents for illegal files.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[An Onerous Coward]

Please try following the thrust of the conversation before making accusations like that. He wasn't equating the downloaders to the anti-apartheid movement. He was citing the case of Nelson Mandela in response to the blanket statement that laws should always be obeyed.

Man, we all need to get over ourselves. You, me, the guy in the chicken suit over there, all of us. I'm going outside to play.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[bbc]

"Why is a law immoral if it prevents people from sharing something produced by someone else without their consent?"

Because the maker is not the owner. Because sharing is a good value, that needs to be encouraged. Because copying protects works. Because the dissemination of works leads to new thoughts, new inventions, new works.

"I would have said that that is a fairly moral law. The opposite, that it is right to share anything regardless of the consent of the creator, strikes me as exceedingly immoral."

Why on earth would you think that?

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[ultranova]

(comparing IP laws to apartheid and file sharers with Nelson Mandela)

Don't get me wrond, I do understand your point (i.e. that the original post was a massive overgeneralisation) but you don't do yourself any favours comparing what are basically selfish goals with the one of the great heroes of the 20th century.

Um, Mandela was black, wasn't he ? How is it that a filesharer fighting for his right to share files is selfish but a black person fighting for the rights of black persons isn't ? Seems illogical to me...

Furthermore, there is the simple fact that the first thing that one who wants to be a tyrant does is stop the free flow of information, so that he can do his evil deeds under the cover of darkness. Obviously, this has nothing to do with sharing Hollywoods latest movies; but if we accept technologies and actions which can be used to stop the former, there is nothing that stops them from being applied to the latter as well. The secret police can always simply claim that the information source they silenced was spreading copyrighted content. It will be impossible to disprove, since the server will be gone at that point.

One way to prevent this would be to stop enforcing the copyright law and pay artists from public funds according to their measured popularity. This would make the "copyright violation" excuse for censorship unusable - so, of course, this will never happen.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Hatta]

Who's to judge what's Immoral? Goverment? Religious police? Freeloaders? Geeks? etc. etc.

Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then?
--H.D. Thoreau

Re:Nice

[mwood]

"So the "US" is to blame simply because the movies are created here?"

It's much simpler than that. The U.S. is to blame. Period. Doesn't matter what it is; if someone doesn't like it, the U.S. is to blame. Don't you read the papers?

Re:What a haul...

[mwood]

Actually, I want a society in which the *artist* gets to decide the terms under which other people experience his art.

You might be amazed at how few people who actually create stuff don't care what happens after they create it.

Re:What a haul...

[mwood]

Indeed. If you think music should be free, create some free music. Ditto movies, etc.

change

[zoftie]

Internet doesn't seem to connect well with relaities of the world, like link of contracts starting with actor, ending with distribution company. Internet exposes and assaults very basic constructs of life, and either put number of draconian stallinist constraints on people who use the internet or we change to adjust to It being integral part of our lives, like "the net" in cyberpunk.
2c

100 years ago.. 1000 years ago...

[nurb432]

Mankind did the same thing.. only it wasnt by electronic means.. But, share something that was 'wrong' and you were burnt at the stake..

In another 100 years people will still be persecuted for shareing information and ideas, in what ever formats are available to us at that time..

Re:What a haul...

[geoffspear]

"I know nothing about Finnish law, but I'll make pronouncements about what it says anyway."

Yeah, real interesting.

TFA states that those arrested face 2 years in prison if convicted. I, for one, would assume that implies that FInland does have criminal penalties for copyright infringement. According to a quick google search, Italy and the UK (which are not the US), at least, also have criminal penalties for copyright infringement. I'd assume many other countries do as well.

Note that some violations, like in the US, are not criminal. Large violations generally are.

Please don't post "facts" if you have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[bbc]

Ah, but the code you wrote is _not_ your property; it is ours. And with ours I mean society's. You only have it on loan. That worked out to everybody's satisfaction at first, but you just had to keep begging for extensions, did you not? No wonder people get miffed. How about you keep your end of the deal (copyright only for 14 years, only on books, not on derivatives, and stop harassing my children), then maybe we will consider keeping ours.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[gtkuhn]

To label an act "piracy" implies that it is being sold for profit by the "pirate". This is not usually the case with p2p. Downloading intellectual property duplicates it, not steals it. The original is still completely intact.

If you tell a funny joke, do you take offense if someone else repeats it.

The argument that music and movies are SOOO much more expensive to produce than a funny joke and thus need us to redefine concepts like theft to include situations where nothing was actually taken.

With a staff like Leno's or Letterman's, I bet they have some pretty expensive jokes. Do they sue anyone who repeats them?

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[bbc]

"I lived through the 80s music scene. There is a lot of music that has deservedly been forgotten."

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Do I need to prove my point with a few examples of contemporary music, or are you willing to concede it? :-)

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[bitwiseNomad]

The solution to this would be to have a clause in the copyright registration that requires the copyright holder to ensure that the material remains available in whatever the current distributed media is.

You're missing the entire point. Copyright was not meant to last for a hundred years at a time. Copyright was meant to be a temporary incentive someone had to produce new and original works. It would let someone have control over the work's distribution, but eventually it would be released into the public domain as fodder for the new artists of the day to use in their own works. I believe the length of copyright at that time was (creators life + 17 years) or something.

You're suggesting a method of fixing a problem with the copyright system, but that problem only exists because it was broken in the first place. Copyright is not meant to be perpetual at all and your suggestion basically assumes that infinite copyrights are okay and are the way things should be. Said another way, your suggestion is a way to *not making things so bad* rather than *admitting that things are bad* and then suggesting a way to *remove the badness*. It's like spraying water at the tip of a burning fire rather than at its base. It might make the fire burn less, but it won't get rid of the problem.

I might also add that while the condition for "keeping one's copyright" may be simple enough for a corporation, it poses real problems for individuals who do not have the financial resources to ensure that there's always books or CD's floating around the market. I know a lot of artists are stretching themselves thin already. Under the conditions you put forth, their copyright terms might wind up being shorter than they would have been at the advent of copyright law.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Have Blue]

That the poster clearly had an unbalanced view of the issues involved, and that more directly related experience might shift his viewpoint to something more realistic.

Re:What a haul...

[GimmeFuel]

So you like stealing music eh? Maybe you shoplift too. Suppose the store lists the price of a sweater at $100. You like the sweater, but decide it's only worth $15 to you, so you are just going to steal it. The store didn't actually pay $100 for the sweater, they bought it from a wholesaler for $40. When the cops arrest you, do they charge you for stealing a $15 item? No. Do they charge you for stealing a $40 item? No. They charge you what the asking/going rate for that item. $100.

Another inane "downloading music is shoplifting" comparison. No, I don't shoplift, because that is theft. If I steal that $100 sweater, the store I stole it from has one less sweater that they can sell.

If someone buys a $20 CD and puts it on P2P and I download it, there has been no theft because because the digital copy of that CD is not scarce. The sweater is scarce; you cannot take one sweater and turn it into two sweaters. The digital copy of the CD is not scarce because it is possible to make a billion copies, if necessary, all from that one original copy.

Another argument against copyright is that the digital copy of a CD is a number. The designation of "MP3" or "OGG" is merely a label; the file itself is a series of several million ones and zeroes, which can be expressed as a base 10 number. Can numbers be owned? If I can claim ownership of some several million digit-long number as a "song" I wrote, why can I not claim ownership of "7"? What happens when I song I wrote, encoded with MP3, turns out to be the same string of numbers as a song you wrote, encoded with some other codec? Who owns it then? Who can claim copyright infringement?

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[ultranova]

No-one's civilisation is put at risk because they can't get to see "Spiderman 2".

Are you sure ?

Tonight, brilliant but poor Albert Smith finally finishes downloading Spider-Man 2. As he watches it, he is fascinated by the fusion reactor. Intrigued, he does an online search and learns that yes, fusion reactors do indeed harness the same awesome power that makes the Sun shine - but, alas, no one has managed to build a good enough fusion reactor for any use beyond pure research. As young Albert reads about the promise of nuclear fusion, he makes a decision - he will become a scientist ! And indeed, 20 years later, it is Albert who designs the world's first nuclear fusion power plant, leading to a hydrogen economy.

With the dependency on oil gone, the Western world stops upkeeping the various tyrants of the Middle East, leading to the collapse of their power, and forcing those countries to begin their long journey into industrial democracies (as opposed to depending completely on export of oil). With fusion power making space travel cheap, the industrialized nations of the world begin a space race of unheard of proportions, with various commercial ventures competing furiously to be the first to tap the resources of the Asteroid Belt, drawing all available workforce for the effort and making unemployment virtually nonexistant.

Colonies start rising on the Inner System like mushrooms in rain, as the workers need to housed somewhere, and where there is population, there is also demand for entertaintment and shops. Those colonies grow and eventually start broadcasting declarations of independence. This leads to a few bloody wars, but ultimately, it's cheaper to work with an independent colony than to blow it up and begin anew, so things stay relatively peacefull overall. Outer system stays a sparsely populated research area, but even there the advance of civilization cannot be stopped. China is also busily colonizing, keeping the free world from getting too arrogant.

Ultimately, the secret of travelling faster than light is discovered, and humanity builds empires in the stars.

Unfortunately, non of this happened. The tracker was taken down when young Smith was halfway through the download. As a result, he never got to see the movie, and never got the spark for science. Instead, he read a comment on Slashdot about file sharing being illegal, and decided to change his ways. From now on, if he wanted anything, he would pay for it. Of course, doing so required money, and so Albert decided to pursue a commercial career.

Albert became an e-mail marketer - spammer. The intellect that could had solved the mysteries of nature was instead put into figuring out how to fool spam filters. Since Albert was smart, the amount of spam polluting peoples inboxes increased, drawing other brilliant young minds into the battle to defend their inboxes - more people lost to science.

No one figured out how to build a commercial fusion reactor in time. When oil finally ran out, the civilization collapsed. The world entered a new Dark Age from which it could never recover since the resource sources that could be tapped with low technology were long since exhausted. The world became a quiet place, and stayed silent forevermore.

So, remember: If you support copyrights, the spammers have already won.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[IInventedTheInternet]

When you make that statement, are you aware of the following very stupid laws?

Shotguns are required to be taken to church in the event of a Native American attack. Location: United States, Maine

Dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to congregate in groups of three or more on private property. Location: United States, Oklahoma

Oral sex is a misdemeanor and is punisable by one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. Location: United States, Oklahoma

It is illegal to detonate any nuclear weapon. You can have them, but you just can't detonate them. Location: United States, Utah

Persons classified as "ugly" may not walk down any street. Location: United States, California, San Francisco

Re:Question for legitimate FTP users

[Xtifr]

What are YOU doing to protect FTP?

Let's face it, there are a lot of people out there who are using FTP to illegally acquire and distribute copywrited [sic] materials.

FTP is being threatened, not only by corporate executives and ignorant congresscritters, but by people who abuse the technology. FTP could be outlawed outright unless the legitimate users of the FTP protocol start policing their own. Couldn't it?

(In case it's not obvious, the above is sarcasm. Neither FTP nor P2P is in any danger of being outlawed. Which kinda blows a big hole in TrollBridge's thesis.)

Re:What a haul...

[LurkerXXX]

The example was that what YOU think something is worth has no relation to what the law says it is worth.

Apparently you failed to read the rest of the post. You stole the right of the creator to determine who was allowed to use their creation.

Re:Question for legitimate FTP users

[TrollBridge]

You're comparing apples to oranges. P2P networks have far more public visibility than FTP, and makes files far more accessible to users than FTP. Afterall, you don't see the xxAA's waging such a public campaign against FTP file sharers, do you? Oh yeah, and get bent!

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[poofyhairguy82]

Ghandi would be proud.

Umm...No he wouldn't. He hated a life of "material confort" that is created by "life corroding competition." He advocated doing things the way they were done thousands of years ago- to stick to a lifestyle forged on the anvil of time.

For the current situation Ghandi would probably say "Those who download inslave their imagination to the whims of popular society. If anything, downloading shows that the participant has learned a poor lesson about life- that someone has to provide entertainment for them and that they must take instead of create."

Outright rejection of the moral lessons imparted by the media that is downloaded would make Ghandi proud.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[shark72]

" To label an act "piracy" implies that it is being sold for profit by the "pirate"."

Perhaps to you, but the relevant dictionary definition (type "dict piracy" in the address bar if you're using Firefox) is the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted or patented material -- no resale required. That's the commonly understood definition as well.

Occasionally somebody will roll into a Slashdot discussion and erroneously state that it's only piracy if it's resold, or (even more humorously) piracy only includes acts on the high seas. They're usually laughed at. My guess is that they do this in an effort to "sanitize" piracy... perhaps they feel the word has too much of a negative connotation that they'd rather not deal with... somewhat like how some spammers use the phrase "broadcast e-mail" to describe their services. I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of... if you'd rather download that CD via P2P than pay for it, fly the jolly roger proudly. Don't worry about rationalizing what you're doing -- you'd simply rather keep the money for yourself than give it so somebody else. It's perfectly understandable.

"With a staff like Leno's or Letterman's, I bet they have some pretty expensive jokes. Do they sue anyone who repeats them?"

My point exactly. It's their prerogative to set the conditions they wish for their intellectual property. Naturally, trying to enforce a "no reproduction" policy on their jokes would be stupid and unworkable. However, it's much more viable for, say, commercial software.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[bitwiseNomad]

Downloading movies from the Internet so you don't have to pay towards the costs of making them is certainly a comparable activity to the examples you mention.

And since the problems we have today are not comperable to the problems of yesterday, they must not be problems at all.

It doesn't take much moral sophistication to proclaim that killing others is bad. It does take a certain amount of moral and mental sophistication to consider the commandeering of copyright law by people who have much more money than any of us do to be a problem, and one that is threatening to not only pirates, but to people who do not engage in activity on P2P networks, and to the artists of the future.

If you intend to claim that copyright infringement and the Holocaust are in different classes of "bad things", then it is unfair to use the same criterion when deciding how bad each of them is.

Example (extreme, I know. But it illustrates the point): Say I sold my personal autonomy to someone. I then became legally bound to be a puppet for my master for the rest of my life and was not allowed to dictate my own actions or speech. Even though I am in this situation, I am fed well, given medicine and medical care when I need it, given a nice place to sleep and live and good clothes to wear, etc. etc. If I were to apply this same situation to the rhetorical statement you just made, I might get this:

"People before you had to live with famine, disease and poverty for their entire lives. Your position isn't even comperable to theirs since you get all of those things taken care of for you, so don't act like there's anything wrong with it."

Someone who said that to me would be right to say that our two positions (those of the people of the past and myself) are not comperable, but it *does not follow* that there is nothing wrong with my position just because our situations are different. Said another way, you can not use the same criterion to judge how bad two problems are when they are (as you are trying to point out) in completely different classes. Just because many people lack the forsight to see why the current copyright situation is dangerous does not make it any less dangerous.

By the way, before anyone decides to discount me as a pirate trying to justify piracy, please keep in mind that the ideas contained in this post are not made any less or more valid depending upon my status as a pirate or not.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Ragica]

While you are certainly right that in the vast majority of cases the issue is 'freeloading' rather than civil rights... from the perspective of the person doing the download.

However, there is a civil rights issue here even if most of the participants don't really care about it.

The issue is roughly: does one have the right to loan someone a video tape they taped from TV for personal use. I realise there's a lot more complications and angles to this, and some cases are clearer than others. But there is a real basic principle (some would say "right") at issue here.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[shark72]

You're correct... patents and copyrights have time limits. This is clearly stated in the US constitution. Nonetheless, "intellectual property" is the commonly accepted term.

"How about you keep your end of the deal (copyright only for 14 years, only on books, not on derivatives, and stop harassing my children), then maybe we will consider keeping ours."

This is the "if it was good enough for my forefathers, it's good enough for us" argument; "Shakespeare didn't need copyright laws" also falls under this umbrella.

First, I think you're spending way more effort than is necessary to rationalize piracy. Instead of saying that you're doing it as a social protest because you believe that copyright laws should exist as they did in 1793, why not just not worry about it justifying it to anybody, and simply acknowledge that you'd rather save a few bucks? Lots of people are doing it. You're being frugal with your money by using P2P rather than going to Best Buy... you're not joining the Montgomery Freedom March.

Other than that, arguments such as yours reveal a lack of understanding that laws commonly change as a result of technology. For example, your state did not have a vehicle code 100 years ago (or if it did, it probably covered carriages and horses), but due to the development of the automobile, it's a couple of inches thick by now. Motion pictures weren't covered by copyright until several years after the technology was introduced. That's just part of how society works. Technology advances, and the laws follow.

Re:What a haul...

[GimmeFuel]

The example was that what YOU think something is worth has no relation to what the law says it is worth.

And so we should not argue about whether or not the law is right because the law can never be changed, right?

Apparently you failed to read the rest of the post. You stole the right of the creator to determine who was allowed to use their creation.

That "right" exists only through contracts. If Adobe wants to make everyone who purchases their product sign a binding contract that says they agree not to put the software up on any P2Ps, good for them. I imagine they have something like that anyway in their EULA. Then, if someone throws Photoshop or whatever on P2P, they can go after that person for breach of contract. If record labels want to make people sign contracts before they buy CDs also, good for them.

What Adobe should not be able to do is go after anyone and everyone who downloads their product, because downloading a stream of ones and zeroes that Adobe claims ownership over does not harm Adobe in any way. That was the point of my post: your entire argument rests on the assumption that a number can be owned. It cannot be, so your argument is invalid. Care to refute me and prove that a number can be owned?

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Snaller]

As the grandparent suggested, you have almost certainly never been involved in the creation of anything that can be pirated. But I bet you're utterly outraged at GPL violations, too. Those damn copyright infringers and license breakers... oh wait.


Art is supposed to be shared. (And don't give my any crap about needing to eat - fair ways could be thought out to cover that - "intellectual property" isn't it)

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Snaller]

Those who want the law reformed need to posit credible alternatives, alternatives that ensure that movies (and music and books etc) can still be made, before arguing that there's something inherently unjust in having to pay to have access copyrighted material.

Why?

Why shouldn't they argue why they should have some sort of god given right to make movies? If enough of the population does not support they way they do it they then don't have any right and should stop - laws or otherwise.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Snaller]

I can't see a GPL'd movie being fundable, can you?

Movies are so expensive because there is a small group of very greedy people getting amoral amounts of money. If all involved got decept onetime saleries it would be much less expensive (Why should a carpenter who build a set get millions less than some guy in a suit who just happens "own" something imaterial)

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[bbc]

Well, I agree with the poster, and I have produced works that are worth copying, and that have actually been pirated.

Of course, I doubt that you will let facts influence the mind you had already made up.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[bbc]

"First, I think you're spending way more effort than is necessary to rationalize piracy."

As long as people keep comparing good values such as sharing and copying to murder and bloodshed on the high seas, somebody needs to let in the cold harsh light of reality.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[Nick_dm]

I certainly don't think copyright law as a principle is immoral, but I would argue that the present set of copyright laws are immoral. The rightful place for all creative works is in the public domain, creative works belong to humanity as a whole rather than the author/artist, copyright expires after a time for this reason.

Copyright is merely to provide an incentive to create, the base situation is that artists don't have to create anything if they don't want to, and people don't have to pay them for something that they choose to do of their own free will.

Now most people would agree that copyright, in principle, is not immoral; it provides us all with a much large of creative works to appreciate, by providing a convinient method for funding creation of such works. However copyright laws that are too strong can cause society more harm than benifit, as it resricts peoples ability to create new works based on old ones (the Reduced Shakespeare Company, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Techno remixes of Beethoven). Copyright law protects/restricts works for seventy years after the death of the artist/author in the US; I don't have a problem with supporting authors and artists who create work that I get to appreciate, but I do think it is very unreasonable to expect me to still be supporting their families up to seventy years after their deaths. In other countries the laws are not as severe, but I still think that extending copyright periods significantly past thirty years is excesive (the law originally allowed protection for twenty seven years in the US I belive).

Of course, civil disobedience on this issue would be rather different to downloading and sharing copies of whatever you wanted, as it would need to be limited to older works. I personally don't see anything wrong with copying works from the mid-sixties and before, most authors will have either succeeded or failed by now in their attempt to make back their investments and make a profit from their work. Copyright doesn't need to do anything other than provide that oportunity to them, so by now it has outlived its usefulness.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[shark72]

"As long as people keep comparing good values such as sharing and copying to murder and bloodshed on the high seas, somebody needs to let in the cold harsh light of reality."

The word piracy is an example of a homonym, or more properly, a homograph. It's a fundamental part of the English language. Most people learn about homonyms and homographs in elementary school.

Nobody is comparing software piracy with sea piracy through the use of a homonym. Similarly, nobody is comparing dogs to trees when they use the word "bark," or birds with cowering with "quail," being reasonable with eating cotton candy and looking at pigs when they use the word "fair."

There are hundreds more examples. Surely you learned about this in elementary school. There are plenty of rational, intelligent arguments to make when discussing piracy and intellectual property, but pretending that you have a substandard knowledge of the English language just for the sake of argument is stupid and a waste of time.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[bbc]

Thank you for the compliment.

The difference between dogs-trees and piracy-sharing is that nobody associates dogs with trees anymore, but the word piracy is hardly ever used in such disassociated manner. The word piracy is often exclusively used to smear the actions of those who share. Similarly, the phrase "intellectual property" suggests still to this day that we are talking about property, about something that can be owned by a single individual. And even though current US copyright law uses the word "own", the constitution of that country makes clear that nobody owns works and inventions.

At last, a pressure point! A non-violent way ...

[chris_sawtell]

... to put real political pressure on the US.
You sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and stop your citizens polluting our common atmosphere, and we'll stop ours sharing your files.
Bit of a long shot, but it might just work.

Life under a rock

[thekrob]

a) drugs are avaialbe at many prices. the legal ones, many of whom are narcotics(mmmm...lithium). moreover, they are in ample enough supply to be more effectd by seasonal weather than by any law enforcement strategy. ergo, the good old 'laws' of supply and demand apply. b)given that 'fair' use of copies is slightly oxymoronic, a war on copying given the widespread nature of its practice is unthinkably expensive to do on a wide scale. Think of the time required to send angry letters to suspected copiers. the legal fees, and zip-ties alone would make victory in the WAr on Copying impossible. c) you and the chap to whom you are responding are missing the real meaning of Christm...err...i mean the real reason to have a War on something: war require soldiers, soldiers get paid, that pay is spent on consummer goods. ain't war grand.

Re:What a haul...

[kn0tw0rk]

As an artist* I do choose how my audience experiences my art. I have chosen to make copies, print t-shirts and give them to my friends. And in some rare cases I have given the original away. I have also chosen not to digitise nor distribute them on the net, because I do not desire to be well known or recognised while I am alive. When I am dead, as part of my will I want my works to be released to the world then freely for all.

Re:What a haul...

[Decessus]

When a person or a company creates a product, it is up to them to determine who gets to use that product. The most common exchange is money. You give them your money, and in return they allow you to use their product. That money is compensation for the time, effort, and anything else that went into making that product. In the case of music, paying $20.00, gives you the privledge to listen to music that the artist made. When you download that same song off a P2P program, you are stealing. It is stealing because you are listening to that song without giving the artist proper compensation. Listening to music is not a right, it is a privledge that is granted to you by paying the amount the artist decided on. If you don't like the price, or the artist, then don't buy the music. You have no right however to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor without giving them proper compensation.
Your argument that a copied CD is a number, and therefore is not owned by anyone is seriously flawed. The musician does not own the 1's and 0's themselves. They own what those 1's and 0's represent. In this case, a song. If you were to create a program or a song using only the number 7, then yes, you would be within your right to charge for that program. By downloading a copy of those 1's and 0's, you are stealing the information that those 1's and 0's represent. If you don't agree with the price of a product, or you don't agree with the product itself, then you have the right not to purchase that product.

If they did...

[dark-br]

... used the raid to cover the fraud they were *realy* carefull and I say this becouse the time to load the pages droped considerably, maybe 4 times faster, then they used to take for the last days. That was said to be the result of the new servers they have bought...

So if the site was faster and no servers have been boght they must be holding it slow since de begining just to put all that crap up and get the money... Could it be *that* premeditated?

Re:If they did...

[Blymie]

It very much could be.

After all, I had no problems with shareconnector until AFTER they decided to ask for donations.

Suddenly, after the case, I had problems connecting. Hmm.

Anyhow, premeditation is not a difficult task. People do it every day, to bed women and steal money ;)

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[DarkEdgeX]

I, of course, meant it in so far as it being a peaceful way of resisting rather than, say, people fed up with copyright laws organizing into a group and sending suicide bombers into Best Buys, Frys and so forth. That'd be just crazy.

I won't speak to his ideals as far as people having "things".

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[gtkuhn]

You, sir, are a very informed debater. Props to you.

However, I still disagree and the only argument I can fall back on is that I don't feel intangibles have the same value as tangibles. Perhaps once they did, in the age of high priests and druids (even scientology before the internet), but today it can be argued that the worth of information is no more than the worth of the media it's stored on since it can be infinitely reproduced with sufficient media and negligible time/energy.

I believe that works of the mind are responsible for our modern world and as such, intellectual property has been given it's just rewards. Perhaps much less than just. Still, the lack of physical resources tied up in these mental properties can make them seem unlimited. Is it possible that such products ARE unlimited, provided the continuance of humanity and the driven artist?

As a CS student who has been programming since childhood, but to date has NOT produced anything commercially viable, I still feel that while I may change the world some day if I'm very lucky, I will probably not get rich. I do it because it's what I do. BTW Tesla is my unsung hero.

I apologize for the fragment in my grandparent. I posted too hastily.

Very Long Wait

[tepples]

When you want a netflix movie, you go to their website, add it to the top of your list, and wait a day or two for it to get there. Work: 5 minutes. Wait: 2 days.

And watch as the ETA goes up to Very Long Wait.

That's a pretty good idea...

[SuperKendall]

I wouldn't mind that at all. If people are really so resistant to advertising, then why was AdCritic so successful?

People love to watch some ads, and will when given the chance. Just bceause people can download things and watch them as desired does not mean the advertisment will die out - it will just have to shift a little to become more interesting to people, or turn into things like product placement. If people think product placement is heavy now, they should try watching old episodes of things like the George Burns and Gracie allen show - it mhad many parts that directly integrated the sponsor into running jokes! Even if people but a few more Pepsi cans in shows it would still be less obtrusive that it used to be back in the "olden days" (note I didn't say good or bad...).

Wal-Mart. Come arrest me.

[tepples]

If I started going around telling people very publically where to go buy drugs I'd get myself arrested.

You can buy over-the-counter medications at Wal-Mart. The store even has an eye doctor to write a prescription for an "eye infection" drug (wink wink nudge nudge).

Come arrest me if you can find me.

Only fascism is compatible with copyright

[tepples]

To suggest that copying of a piece of work without paying for it somehow gives you the moral high ground is laughable.

To suggest that it doesn't is fascist. Among several major moral philosophies, only fascism is compatible with copyright.

Re:I have said it before and I'll say it again...

[gowen]

But making it a criminal act instead of misdemeanor is too heavy, don't you think?

Yes, I do. Especially when the perpetrator is not making any money from the deal.

Re:What a haul...No see, no happen.

[plague3106]

And inflation is depriving me of nothing as well.

Depends. If your wages increase at least at the rate of inflation, then no, it doesn't cost you anything.

At any rate, inflation isn't even something you could buy if you wanted to, and isn't something you can even really control with great success.

I think you're just trolling, but in case you're not, what exactly is your point?

Re:What a haul...

[Pantero Blanco]

When they're deciding what each individual song file is worth, do they count the money to pay the musicians, the money to purchase the instruments, the money to buy the system to digitally "touch it up", the money to make the CD, the money to buy the truck to transport the CDs to stores, and the money to hire the truck driver?

This crap makes the "$80k E911 document" look pitiful in comparison.

Re:What a haul...

[Pantero Blanco]

That's because they physically remove the car from the lot or from its previous owner, so that no one else can use it. If someone can walk over to a car lot, make a perfect copy of one of the cars, and drive away in it, charging them with grand theft auto is pretty ridiculous.

Re:Economic Terrorist.

[Pantero Blanco]

"Economic terrorism"? Sorry, but that term positively reeks of bullshit. The very definition of "terrorism" makes it an oxymoron, as "terrorism" involves use of force.

Re:What a haul...

[Technician]

Indeed. If you think music should be free, create some free music. Ditto movies, etc.

Don't forget to suport those who provide..

When buying hardware, if I have a choice, Enttec and Artistic Licence get first choice in lighting products. They also get my free word of mouth promotion. The retationship Light Factory has with Enttec also puts their status in the good group even though their product isn't free, but they are supporting the open Enttec interface. That's worth points and a good mention.

If you are involved in theatrical lighting or nightclub lighting, look these good guys up.

Disclamer. I don't work for them but found them while doing research for doing some lighting on a budget. I am buying the Enttec interface which will be my first piece of DMX512 hardware.

Re:What a haul...

[Goobermunch]

Ridiculous unless what we're punishing is the wrongful obtaining of a thing of value (rather than wrongfully depriving another of a thing of value). There's an important distinction there.

If that's the case, then shouldn't we compensate the property owner for the value of the wrongfully taken property? Of course, the flip side is that then the person who's taken the property probably ought to be allowed to keep it.

--AC