Slashdot Mirror
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.
... 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.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"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.
How to Download YouTube Videos
On WinMX (which isn't as good as it used to be, which is why I dare mention it on
"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.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
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.
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.
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.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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.
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).
http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/krp/home.nsf/PFBD/28 FB313B1DCD10EAC2256F6A004A5FA5?opendocument
in Finnish, sorry.
++K
<[letter kay][at][number seventy seven][dot][finnish TLD]>
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.
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.
I am trolling
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.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
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.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
- 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.
.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.
- 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
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.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
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.
Finreactor.com.
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?
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
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
"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.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
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.