Slashdot Mirror
Following up on Torrent Shutdowns
dantheman82 and others have submitted a number of links about the recent closure of torrent mega sites like suprnova and torrentbits.
The
Unofficial Suprnova Closure FAQ comments that some torrent site maintainers have been arrested and that Suprnova was closed over fear of similiar fate.
DeHavilland notes that the finnish police raided an unnamed torrent site. There's a lot of scary things here, but to me what is most scary is that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
Someone should put up some stats about the change in internet traffic due to these sites being down. I'm sure somebody is in charge of a university network or something?
If BT was accounting for 35% of traffic, what's it at now? Still declining?
You call it excessive, I call it ambitious.
Not! The author of the FAQ must really want the other torrent sites to disappear, as well, or else he wouldn't be listing them for the MPAA to hunt after.
A blog like any other.
Sloncek decided to take SuprNova.org off line voluntarily. This will allow him and his fellow administrative staff to concentrate on other projects without worry of prosecution.
Do you think the MPAA really cares if you're still doing it?
I wasn't speeding when the cops pulled me over...
You call it excessive, I call it ambitious.
As much fun as American bashing is ... let us not forget that these companies are international and hold copyrights in Finland and most of the rest of the world.
I doubt anyone was arrested in Finland for breaking solely US law. I am sure the Finnish police had a Finnish law to justify the arrests.
With their constant outsourcing (to AU & CN, to name two popular movie studio outsource winners), these "American copyright holders" don't seem too interested in actually doing the US any favours.
I think many of the European countries wouldn't allow RIAA/MPAA/etc to go after individual downloaders, but would after the centralized tracker servers. However, what about re-locating to places like Russia, Eastern Europe, south america, etc? Not physically of course but the servers. Alternatively is anyone working on a more transparent P2P system? The advantages of BT (fast speeds, built in incentives to share upload speed) with higher levels of anonymity and a more distributed tracker? Its ironic that the movie, TV, and recording industry have this vast opportunity here (lots and lots of people worldwide want to see your stuff!) but cannot capitalize on it. I'd pay a few bucks a month if I could download whatever I wanted and see it whenever I wanted without going to crappy movie theaters or sitting in front of the couch when the TV execs want me to, but I guess thats heresy. (yes, I have a mythTV box)
It sucks that they shutdown the web sites... but IRC will forever remain the unstoppable force when it comes to obtaining illegal files... whether it's FTP, or torrents... IRC will always have the info available... Perhaps it's a good thing that the websites are being shutdown... Napster became too popular, killed the free MP3 system... The same thing happend to DirecTV and DISHNET... too easy for joe q. public to obtain pirated signals, again too popular... If we keep the methods of obtaining illegal things difficult, it keeps the popularity down, and more or less off the radar screen... Now I personally stopped pirating a while back... but my reasoning for it in the first place was the challenge... Now a days it's just a click here and a click there, and presto... what's the fun in that? I enjoyed the challenge more than the results... besides... 99% of the illegal stuff out there is GARBAGE anyways... and the stuff that isn't you need to purchase to actually use it...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
IANAL, but it seems odd that these sites which distribute the torrents can be held liable for the torrent's contents. The sites never actually host the copyrighted material, same goes for the trackers of the torrents. It would seem to me that the seeds of torrents would be the ones who are violating copyright law. But it is a shady practice, I dont know if I would really want the EFF to get involved with this one.
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
Does due process still exist? Shouldn't this basically be a civil matter? Shouldn't the issues be put before the court so each country can apply their version of copyright laws and see how they apply to the posting of torrent links on a web site? Could some IANAL types please expalin it to me so I can stop being so naive!
Freenet is probably too slow to recreate a site like Suprnova, but how about this. Instead of using Freenet to distribute each individual torrent, could you publish on Freenet a torrent that contains other torrents? For instance, a torrent for each category of files, like what was on Suprnova - a "Movies-Drama" torrent that contained a zipped file of all torrents in that category? This way, you wouldn't be relying on Freenet to distribute every torrent file, just a much smaller index of torrents.
If somebody wanted to take ownership of this, they could create a Freenet page with an anonymous feedback form. When somebody has a torrent to publish, they could submit the info to the anonymous form, and then the publisher would compile all the new torrents into the next version of the index.
Sound feasible?
I've seen a lot of comments on this around "the internets" (yep, all of them ;), and most of them seem to be of the "noooooo... not my warez! Come back!" variety. To me, though, the better question is where the line is drawn. When the sites that -link- to trackers that -allow- people to download -possibly illegal- files from -each other- get shut down, I get worried. How long will it be until any technology that is used for illegal deeds is at risk?
I wonder what will will happen to piratebay.org.. If the raids can happen in finland, then sweden cant't a pirate haven.
;)
legal letters
Will they get a taste of their own medicine?
> There's a lot of scary things here, but to me what
> is most scary is that American copyright owners
> can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
Probably about as scary as being the copyright holder of original works being distributed globally for free against your wishes.
I agree. If this sort of thing curbs piracy, then maybe the four-letter organizations will calm down about DRM.
Shutting down a torrent sites which feature copyrighted movies and music annoys those who just want something for nothing. DRM hurts everybody, and especially every geek.
It is a given that the MPAA, RIAA, etc. are going to do SOMETHING. I would rather have them do this than add copy protection to every A/D converter made.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Furthermore, this is exactly what should be happening: the government attacks those who break the law, rather than those who create the tools. Bit torrent and p2p applications have legal, useful purposes; by seeking those who use them in illegal ways rather than banning them altogther is appropriate, rather than trying to ban them.
.torrent extension attached to the end of filename should be legal too.
Posting some obscure file with
Saying otherwise will only bring ultimate doom of our society a little bit closer.
MPAA == Motion Picture Association of America America != Finland. QED: MPAA did not shut these sites down.
I wholeheartedly agree. This is a very good thing for Developing Nations. But these sites are not in Developing nations.
But, you might also be forgetting that the majority of the traffic to these torrent sites is coming from the US, and one of the main reasons these sites are in other countries is to escape US copyright laws. IF these sites WHERE in developing nations and only catering to those developing nations, I wouldn't see much of a problem problem with that at all.
under American law (yes the dreaded DMCA) suprnova was safe from lawsuits because it just acted like google as a clearing house for information and didn't actually run the trackers with infringing material.
Are you sure a judge wouldn't call it contributory infringement, relying on A&M v. Napster?
Correct. And "copyright infringement" is "copyright infringement".
If you stole something from someone, then you stole it, you didn't "deprive them of a theoritical sale"
Also correct (except for the spelling). Whereas, if you copy something and leave them with the original, you haven't stolen it.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
I was the turkey all along
A quick Google turned up this explanation (as opposed to writing my own).
Contributory infringement and vicarious liability are court-created theories (i.e., not specified in the Copyright Act) designed to hold a company liable for its participation in unlawful copying. The theory is analogous to the getaway driver in a robbery; everyone knows that the person who drives the getaway car will be in trouble, even if he does not rob the store. The imposition of secondary or indirect liability [1] is common throughout the law. Those who aid or abet the commission of wrongs, or who benefit from them, are frequently held liable.
Secondary liability is an especially important tool in copyright enforcement. Often, alleged contributory infringers may be in the best position to prevent or police violations. And suing many individual direct infringers may be impractical or expensive. However, secondary liability can create disincentives to innovation and entrepreneurship. Generally products have legitimate uses as well as infringing ones, and liability may inhibit firms from serving beneficial purposes. The Supreme Court's decision in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios limited the circumstances in which liability for contributory infringement may be imposed on a technology company simply because it provided a product that was used for infringement.
The copyright laws do not expressly provide for secondary liability for copyright infringement. But the courts, in a long series of cases, have imposed liability on those who facilitate or profit from copyright infringement. Thus there are two main strands of secondary liability for copyright infringement: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY
The standard definition for contributory copyright infringement is when the defendant, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another." [2] In other words, the record labels must not only show ownership of a valid copyright and unlawful copying but must show that the P2P company 1) had knowledge of the infringing activity and 2) materially contributed to the infringing conduct. Again, this is for the purpose of holding someone other than the infringer liable for copyright infringement.
VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY
Vicarious liability is another means of holding someone liable for copyright infringement even when that person or party is not the one who did the infringing. In order to find a defendant liable under the theory of vicarious liability for the actions of an infringer, it must be shown that the defendant 1) has the right and ability to control the infringer's acts, and 2) receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement.[3] Unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. However, courts have determined that the combination of the right and ability to control the infringer's acts and the receipt of a direct financial benefit from the infringement suffices to hold a defendant vicariously liable for copyright infringement, even if the defendant had no knowledge of the particular infringement.[4]
I don't know anything about Finnish law, but it's a criminal matter if Finnish law says it is.
In the US, you are exposing yourself to civil *and* criminal penalties depending on the infringement.
Look, mommy, I can Google! Here's a page at the US DOJ about it.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Try telling that to the old Napster. There is such a thing as contributory infringement, you know.
the main reason for Finnish police acting was donate button on their page,
which made under finnish law, the copyright infrigment into copyright crime, since they were making money with piracy.
True that the money was spent on paying their expenses running the dedicated server abroad, but it was still income from distributing copyrighted material.
Point being you're not allowed to receive any income or donations from illegal material or byproducts of such, no matter what your expenses are while getting the material.
You're allowed to download such material under current fair use laws for personal use, as long there's no intention for profit.
The line of intention was crossed on this occasion because of the donate button.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
If I made a product that I put effort and thought into, and I could charge $100 for each, is it lawful if someone in another nation can steal my work and produce straight copies for $10 each, thereby bypassing the entire R&D costs, of which I'm stuck paying for myself as well as freeloaders?
If that's the best option for the people of that foreign nation... then fuck yes. Laws have to stop somewhere. You can lobby your government to put pressure on that foreign government to sign trade agreements prohibiting that kind of behavior. That would be making it no longer the best option for the people of that foreign nation.
Other nations should not be havens for those who engage in the theft of other people's property.
That's a troll line, and you know it. Irrelevant.
Would you argue against all extradition treaties as well?
I'd argue against a lot of them, sure. Should we sign an extradition treaty with Iran and ship them Salman Rushdie in a box?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
...is that governments (ineffective and beurocratic) is being shafted by multi-national corporations (insensitive and protective). You might not notice it as much in the US, which is a fairly large country, but smaller countries do. You think Wal-Mart is screwing US companies around? Try being a small country, who gets essentially blackmailed "Hmmm should we place this in your country, or your neighbour? What's your offer?"
All the trade organizations are against world government because it would rival their own world-wide economic power. Want to dodge emissions standards? "Sorry, all global" Want to employ child labour? "Sorry, forbidden globally" Want to employ (wage) slave labour? "Sorry, minimum standards on worker's rights" The list goes on.
Yes, you have the problem of who watches the watchers. Since ultimately you have no "bigger" to watch over you, on top you place a system of checks and balances. This is nothing new and is essientially what exists at the top of every democratic organization, including national (USA) and supernational (EU) governments.
None of them work perfectly. But I don't see any reason why a world government should have to be worse at it. In fact, a world government would have a lot more power to actually raise standards without affecting competition. Take a look at how many proposals are rejected because it would put them at a disadvantage to the rest of the industry. A level playing field is a good one.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
When people are stealing my stuff, I would do everything in my power to stop them whether I was a large company or a single individual.
The various Ass.'s of America are stealing MY STUFF. They are using the law to starve the public domain.
Given the corporatist nature of the American government, voting won't make a difference. The only way to have even a marginal effect on their actions is to do whatever I can to kill (bankrupt) them. Giving away their lifeblood for free is pretty much the only way that we, as non-corporate entities, have to stop them from continuing to steal our stuff.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Interesting concept, although it really makes me wonder: when The People stand up, against whom do they revolt? Its one thing to take up arms to overthrough a corrupt govenrment, but are we now saying that there's a need for a redefinition of "hostile takeover"?
How quickly we forget the lessons of the Cult of Scientology vs. Julf's infamous anon.penet.fi remailer.
INTERPOL and the Finnish cops were more than happy to raid Julf when the cult snapped it's fingers.
So how come we don't see torrent search engines popping up in safer locations, like Havenco? The MPAA would literally have to hire mercenaries to take down the server, and there's a pretty good chance that Havenco has spent a little money on defending Sealand from attacks like this.
I guess the court case will show if the donate-button was crossing the line, but I bet it also helped that they had user registration and quotas. From the user stats the police could easily pick out the people who shared the most stuff, and aren't these probably the same 30 or so people, who's homes were invaded and computers confiscated (and some of whom were maybe also responsible for running the torrent-webpage)? So they CAN pin these people with actually illegally sharing copyrighted stuff, and not just "providing links to some kind of content"...
"The looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand", or so I have read.
"fair use" does not cover distributing OR downloading 'The Life Aquatic' without permission from the author--regardless of circumstances.
Yet I can borrow 'The Life Aquatic' (once it's on DVD, that is) from a friend for no charge and it is perfectly legal and the same effect has been achieved (one person, who was not me, paid for access to IP which I then viewed for free).
Obviously the principle is not what scares MPAA/RIAA, because the principle cannot be reasonably argued against without constraining liberty. The problem is copies that do not generationally degrade, not the principle of sharing. At least, that was the *AA's stance in the 90s.
If you truly believe that the problem isn't generational degradation, but that information, once disseminated, should remain under the control of its originator, then from that principle you can posit a society where merely relating a remembrance of an IP work to another unauthorized individual (e.g. via casual chat) could be construed as piracy. If you think the problem is that digital media is 'too good' and lasts too long, you're in the buggy whip camp...
Stealing can have many definitions. Rather than dealing with those definitions, lets examine the possible harm to the "victim" to see if any crime was committed.
1 - Did the vicitm actualy loose possession of the item in question? No, online piracy involves making a copy, not removing or destroying the origional. As a consequence, the copyright holder has not been deprived of any property.
2 - Did the victim loose some future benefit? While many would argue that piracy cuts into sales, the argument is flawed. Pirated copies are free. At zero cost demand can be assumed to be at its maximum. Maximum demand is well above equilibrium unless you're selling air. Further, authorized copies are typicaly at a higher bit rate and exhibit superior characteristics in nearly ever respect. As a consqeuence few if any sales of authorized copies will be lost to the inferior pirate copy.
3 - The ability to control the distribution of a peice of information is the primary purpose of copyright and the primary benefit lost when piracy occurs. As a consequence pirates are liable for the monitary value of this loss. The question then is what is the monitary value of this loss. Moreover, once piracy has occured once the copyright holder has lost the monopoly on this distribution chain. Further copies beyond the first do not do further damage to this monopoly. In this case we could perhaps ascribe blame and liability to the first individual to break the copyright monopoly for each individual work. Of course, determining exactly what civil and criminal penalties were in order would involve placing a dollar value, not on the distribution of the work, but on the difference between a monopoly as the state of nature.
As no real values exist for this descrepancy, appropriate penality seems impossible.
At present, however, we must deal with what the law says as opposed to what the law ought to say.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
>is it lawful if someone in another nation can steal my work and produce straight copies for $10 each?
Actually, yes. According to the Constitution you have no right to exclusively market your product except what we give you because we think that allowing you this TEMPORARY monopoly may help us in the long run.
Due do bribes by Disney and a couple other evil corporations, these exclusive rights are being abused to the point where they are no longer good for the average Citizen at all, and therefore they should be made illegal (according to the Constitution, anyway)
After all these takedowns we can rename it to BitTrickle.
What about legit uses like getting Linux distros?
You want a signature? You can't handle a signature!!
However, I fail to see why anyone has the right to withold IP that would be the salvation of millions of people, but I'm like that. Nobody is asking the drug companies (or you) to provide medical assistance for free, they simply want to make thier own drugs without paying the drug companies IP tax. It would cost shareholders nothing since the "potential customers" simply don't have the money to pay the tax and will be dead well before they can save up for it. If I'm not mistaken the US was born from a revolution against an unjust tax and that was for tea not life saving medicine.
The self-centered argument that nobody is obliged to help anyone does not give you the right to actively assist in the creation of a humanitarian disaster.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.