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.
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.
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.
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]>
"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?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
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
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
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?
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