Slashdot Mirror
First BitTorrent Arrest in Hong Kong
prostoalex writes "Associated Press says a 38-year-old was arrested in Hong Kong for uploading Daredevil, Red Planet and Miss Congeniality via a BitTorrent client. Hong Kong laws provide for a maximum of 4 years in prison and $6,400 fine for every copy distributed without copyright owner's permission."
Rather, they prosecute bad taste in Hong Kong.
Hmm... There's more to this story that they're not telling... and, yes, if it was me, I would not want to be identified.
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
so it begins.....
itadakimasu
Cane him!
ok.. so it's automatically a life sentence for distributing 10 pieces of gifs you didn't own.
pretty harsh. but then again you could get shot for something as mild as that...
(note: it's such a thing that the gov. can use to put away anyone they want for life.. but it's not like chinese gov would need to create excuses for that)
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
He was a bittorrent freeloader so he's only responsible for uploading 0.013 copies. That's... what? 83 bucks? I think he'll be fine.
Luckily he only uploaded old and unpopular movies, so the impact/loss to movie industry isn't huge.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
FACT: At some point in any file distribution protocol on the Internet a 'client' has been directed to a 'server' (peers, whatever) for a piece of information. The 'client' asks for this info and the 'server' provides it.
If the info being transfered is copyrighted then it is not legal for the 'client' to ask for and accept this info nor it is it legal for the 'server' to respond to these requests. If both the 'client' and 'server' are coroporating then this transfer will happen just fine.
If however either the 'client' or the 'server' are undercover 'good guys' then they can easilly rat out the other party; who, in the Internet, can eventually be tracked down and served with a lawsuit.
If you are running software that either requests (a 'client') or distributes (a 'server') information subject to copyrights then the copyright holder or an agent acting on their behalf can bust you, provided that the magic peer-to-peer search leads them to you (or your search leads you to them).
The only legal questions are whether this constitutes entrapment. If it does the pirates win and copyright law is broken. If it doesn't then the RIAA/MPAA/whoever wins and copyright law is safe.
All the fancy peer-to-peer protocol magic in the world can't change these basic facts. You don't anonymously receive and send packets on the Internet, you have a designated IP address and that can be followed to you.
On the other hand a different argument based on 'first principles' makes 'Digital copyright management' schemes such as CSS, HDCP, and Windows media also can't work.
The end result is that reality is set up to make copyright infringement impossible to stop and also impossible to hide (unless you absolutely trust who you are sharing information with, an unreasonable assumption).
This is just like the rest of life, breaking the law (murder, terrorism, etc) is VERY easy but getting away with it is VERY hard thus we make the punishment too great to worth the risk. Of course terrorism fails to respond to this formula and thus results in an up-hill battle that no one likes (lack of freedoms, privacy and security), one that eventually is destined to fail terribly.
I'd nearly finished that download too! Why don't the authorities pick on the torrents with a lot of seeds to give people a chance?...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
With Bit-Torrent you upload piece-meal, so if he say only uploaded 1/4 of a movie's worth would he get 1 year? Or did he just upload the tracker? But, that really wouldn't be a copyrighted work, because the file isn't contained in the tracker, right?
Copyright infringement, and three counts of extremely bad taste and wasted bandwidth.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Since when does Hong Kong care about copyright/patent enforcement? The last time I was there I could have gotten a (counterfeit) North Face coat, Rolex watch, and Prada bag, and for about $100US. What gives? 3 movies? I mean, seriously...
Bull.
My rights are not affected by the prosecution of some pirate. We don't have, nor should we expect, the right to pirate movies.
4 years for every COPY distributed? Or 4 years for every copy DISTRIBUTED? (IE is he potentially going to jail 12 years for putting up 3 movies or 4 * 1000 thousand downloads?)
This is a good day for piracy and IP rights in general.
This is a bad day for BitTorrent in general.
I don't think anyone can validly claim that BitTorrent needs to be banned, or that Miss Congeniality needs to go to the public domain.
And from their actions, do they even HAVE copyright laws in China?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
One wonders if this is going to become a pattern in places like Hong Kong, Bangkok and other area's of the world where piracy is strong - or simply a courtesy arrest to please the complaining MPAA.
I saw police shut down a kiosk in Moscow once for selling pirated movies (a legit store across the street had complained) but within a day the kiosk re-opened, it simply moved further down the road.
Since we lack details, and no charges have been filed yet, I guess we will have to wait and see. Even if he is convicted, I doubt he would get the maximum penalty of 4 yrs in jail (more then likely IMO that he will get the fine - 6,400 for every illegal copy (how would you track that on bittorrent?)
There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
OK, let me be the first to say that I don't usually agree with these kind of arrests but that was way out of line. Did he think somebody was actually going to watch that turd?
The only thing worse is explaining to friends and family what caused you to get arrested.
OK, enough cheap humor. This thread's gonaa go downhill fast anyway...I'll just stop now.
"Hong Kong authorities have made their first arrest for allegedly " and then later, "The suspect was not immediately charged and investigations are continuing,"
In Hong Kong, you can be arrested without being charged with anything?!?
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
One way to foul this all up- have multiple NAT routers between you and the file server in question.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The punishment for distributing Miss Congeniality, legally or illegally, should be death.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
Don't call it a "BitTorrent Arrest" -- some of my best friends use BitTorrent for perfectly legitimate reasons... It's really an arrest for piracy.
who's moderating the meta-moderators?
Uh oh. Be careful! That statement goes against the slashbot groupthink!
Next time, ask someone in North Korea to host sensitive data!
Fancy number theory makes a lot of things possible that would seem intuitively impossible. Check out Freenet. You are making assumptions that aren't always true. For example, let's say you download two seeming random blocks of binary data and XOR them together, and you get the latest hollywood blockbuster. Who is violating copyright in this case?
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
We don't have, nor should we expect, the right to pirate movies.
But I love Pirate movies! The Curse of the Black Pearl was awesome!
"I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
... better placed in the Peer2Peer category. Which ought, of course, to be created first.
...$6,400 fine for every copy distributed without copyright owner's permission.
Luckily, there were no downloads of these fine films.
"The only legal questions are whether this constitutes entrapment. If it does the pirates win and copyright law is broken. If it doesn't then the RIAA/MPAA/whoever wins and copyright law is safe. "
DISCLAIMER: What follows is based on U.S. law. If you are not in the U.S., your laws can and will vary.
Well, legally, it probably wouldn't be entrapment. Entrapment is actually an incredibly narrow issue -- basically, you have to enticed into doing something you would not normally do. So, if you are looking to buy pot, and but from an undercover cop, that's not entrapment, because you were going to buy the pot any -- the cop didn't entice you into doing something you wouldn't otherwise do.
If you were searching for illegal materials online, and a server gave them to you then ratted you out, again, that wouldn't be entrapment, because you were looking for the illegal stuff.
I guess if you were honestly an "innocent infringer" then maybe this would hold up, but "innocent infringer" can be pretty tough to prove, and is not even allowed as a defense if the copyright is registered, as all movies are.
So, what would entrapment be? If an undercover cop gave you a birthday present, which you didn't like so you regifted, and then the cop arrested you for trafficking in stolen goods, becausew the gift he gave you was originally stolen, well, that's the kind of thing that is entrapment under the legal standards. Virtually none of the things that people usually think of as entrapment -- dope buys from undercover cops, cops posing as hookers, speed traps, etc. -- are legally entrapment.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
They don't provide crucial information in this article, which is really more like a paragraphed spittle of information, really.
1. Was this guy the original seed?
2. Was he even a seed? Or was he just downloading them?
I think this is very important, especially given that as a BitTorrent user, one can only be so selective about one's involvement in the distribution of the file(s). If this guy was just downloading the files (not sure why anyone would, but hey), and was arrested for uploading them, that would be a Very Bad Thing.
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
No one in this discussion has ever pirated movies, to be sure! You're preaching to the choir.
Is there anything on BitTorrent besides legitamate, free, fully transferrable, liscened software?
If you're distributing Daredevil you deserve to be arrested, piracy or not.
Sorry about the multiple typos -- should have used the 'preview' button...
"...basically, you have BE to enticed..."
"...and BUY from an undercover cop..."
"...to buy the pot ANYWAY..."
proofread next time...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
How are they going to prove he "distributed" the movie if he is only serving chunks out piecemeal to various clients?
I mean, can they track other users, to see how many full downloads were obtained only from this guy?
Serving a small slice of the movie is not distributing the movie because THAT SLICE is useless without all the pieces. If he was serving the movie, all they can prove is they *they* were able to download one copy of it (per machine/instance they were able to download). Right?
The truth is that the Hong Kong street vendors selling pirated copies of movies, software, etc are taking a beating from the people choosing to use P2P methods of obtaining their media. A group of street vendors has taken it upon themselves to turn in every BT user they can identify in the hopes that people will quit using P2P and go back to the street vendors. The cops are rather upset about it to as they get kickbacks from the street vendors which have gotten smaller as well.
Mord
Just like the good ole US of A - where you can get locked up *indefinitely* without being charged. Makes the Chinese look like a bunch of friggin liberals.
The problem has two sides. One, violating another's copyright. Two, movie companies charging a lot for their movies.
The only legal questions are whether this constitutes entrapment.
Here is a definition of entrapment:
ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
Did someone call him up and say "hey dude share some crappy movies? No. Did the cops install bittorrent on his pc and set it up? No. This dude broke the law in his country and is being punished. Whether or not you agree with it is a different story.
Oderint dum metuant
It shouldn't be illegal to transmit bits and bytes over a wire. It is not tantamount to theft in any way.
disingenuity at its best!
Look, it's illegal to photocopy books. Everybody understands why, and yet I'm only capturing photons with a photocopier. Right? Well, same with bytes that encode a movie.
You're free to encode and send anything that you yourself created and decided to distribute for free explicitely however...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
not charged immediately....
The police (at least in Britain) tend to arrest, question, charge (they only get to hold people for 12 hours without an extension from a magistrate and there is a limit on the total time) before the person has to be released, bailed or charged. (IANAL etc)
FGD 135
"If the info being transfered is copyrighted then it is not legal for the 'client' to ask for and accept this info nor it is it legal for the 'server' to respond to these requests."
Even that statement is not anywhere nearly true enough to be reasonable. There is possibly as much material that is copyrighted, but permitted to be distributed, as not.
This means the problem is even bigger than it appears. On the other hand, nobody honestly believed it was permitted to distribute the items in the story, in Hong Kong. There are two ingredients, though: 1. The owner of the distribution rights to Miss Congeniality chooses to 2. restrict those rights.
Merely being copyrighted alone does not make it illegal to transfer a file! If that were the case, how would you get GCC or Mozilla? More to the point, how do you make the same law that protects GCC in the way the FSF wants it protected, also protect Miss Congeniality in the way Warner Bros wants it protected?
Simply saying "this material is copyrighted, and therefore is a no-no" actually serves to *abridge* the rights of some people creating content! If I write music, and I want it distributed, does that mean I have to give up my copyright? NO! But a blanket argument like yours, which is a common misconception, does serve to reduce my own rights, and increases the power of the large media corporations by doing so.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
the authorities didn't arrest him for just the act of uploading movies. it was because he uploaded those movies. he was dragging down the rep of all the pirates in China.
imagine what they think of the people that actually made those films...
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
Ironic the link is posted on 'iWon' news. Well, he's certainly going to get a prize...
Your example is just an example of an inefficient bit representation of the data, not some sneaky 'perfect encryption' as you suggest (of course it COULD be but it isn't).
I wonder which this guy feels dumber about, getting arrested for using bittorrent, or getting arrested for distributing crap.
:P
And, I take it that figure is in USD, correct? 'cause I could probably find that much in HKD in my COUCH.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
Bittorrents don't upload copyrighted files - people do.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Can anyone explain to me why it's my right to violate copyright law while on the internet?
And how does that makes it right?
Oderint dum metuant
Hey, anyone want to go see a pirate movie?
Surely public key encryption could be built into the p2p clients so that at least there could only be proof that a client shared a single file. Any third party monitoring the network would only see digital static moving between nodes...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
> Hong Kong laws provide for a maximum of 4 years in prison and $6,400 fine for every copy distributed without copyright owner's permission.
$6,400 Hong Kong dollars which are, like, 2 American.
Must-not-watch TV!
Yes you are right, please mentally substitute all those words I used for words representing the thoughts you know I meant to mean. Thanks :)
You can argue that they are only numbers, but a movie is only a swirling pattern of colors coupled with pressure waves. And when you watch it, it's just photons hitting the back of your eyeball and something shaking in your ear. All of these things are just different ways of representing and transmitting the same idea.
I heard a rumor that their police sometimes advertise that they're going to crack down on pirated DVDs on a particular day, just so that all the DVD stores know to close their doors (and reopen them once the police have finished their "search").
Well, I don't know whether rule of the law means making a different law every 3 years as they're doing in the US or Europe ? No one has the slightest idea how to interpret these "laws" anyway.
This is not a signature.
Arrested? Thats nothing.
Yesterday, here in Malaysia a pirated VCD seller was shot in the chest with an automatic handgun by enforcement officers. Not only that, this took place in front of an coffeeshop and the slug that exited the VCD seller hit a guy having a meal.
The VCD seller was unarmed.
The MPAA ought to be proud of us.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Judge: This is your computer, right?
You: Yes.
Judge: Then you are repsonsible.
You: But your honor, it wasn't me, it was my roommate! I was asleep the whole time!
Judge: Roommate, did you do this?
Roommate: Your honor, I cannot tell a lie. It wasn't me.
Judge, So, you, do you have any PROOF that it was your roommate? Since it was your computer, the presumption is that you are reponsible, and it is your burden to PROVE that is was your roommate and not you.
You: But your honor, I just told you...
Judge: SILENCE! If all I have is your word against his, he wins, because YOU have the burden of proof. Bailiff, lock this man in irons!
You: You haven't heard the last of me yet...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
I'm not a lawyer either, but, your PC, your responsibility. If you willingly let him use the system, and he willingly downloads or uploads said material, you are both probably liable for the offense. He did it and by you letting him on the system, you helped. Then again, I'm NAL. I'm sure you could say that it was done without your knowledge or express permission or some such. Truth or not though, I would say your either screwed or wouldn't have enough money to fight.
sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
For a country that generally ignores foreign patents and IP, this is an unusual move. Markets in major Chinese cities tend to have many vendors hawking ripped/copied/cammed DVD/VCD movies of various quality, audio CD's, and cheap imitations that bear a startling likeness to the real thing (such as the "swiss" watch I'm wearing at this moment).
Generally police would ignore such activities, so what makes law enforcement so much attention to this particular case?
"The 38-year-old man, who was not identified, is suspected of uploading the films "Daredevil,""Red Planet" and "Miss Congeniality" onto a Web site from which others could obtain them, Law said."
:P
Huh? by this are they saying that he didn't actually use bit torrent on his pc to transfer these but uploaded them to a topsite FROM his torrent downloads?
From the article i read nowhere that he actually served his files with torrent, only the inferance that he "used" the software.
Maybe a better title would be, "Microsoft user involved in Hong Kong movie smuggleing"
...
that I haven't seen addressed. What are the ramifications of downloading an episode of a TV series that has already been broadcast. I've paid my cable bill and would therefore, I think, have the right to view the program. If my VCR timer fritzes and I want to pick up a copy of an episode of Lost or 24, what are the legalities? Would it matter whether the commercials were included (which I would edit out regardless of whether I recorded it or someone else did)?
Exactly... I ment (and I think
Omnes stulti sunt.
Bullshit. You have 24 hours (maybe less, can't remember to be exact) before they have to let you go if they don't charge you with a crime.
Bored? Why not join a decent mess
Seems like a fair punishment.
Those were horrible movies and unleashed pain and suffering to those who downloaded them.
Did someone call him up and say "hey dude share some crappy movies? No. Did the cops install bittorrent on his pc and set it up? No. This dude broke the law in his country and is being punished. Whether or not you agree with it is a different story.
entrap v.
To lure into performing a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act.
You raise an interesting point. Bittorrent does not give the end user the option to share or not to share. The software it self shares whatever you happen to be getting by it's design. If this is true you can not say the dude wanted to "share some crappy movies"... only download crappy movies.
Add to that the fact that access to many Bittorrent services are sold by 3rd parties. For example suprnova.com charged for access to torrents stored on suprnova.org. From the end user's perspective they paid for a service. One could say they were tricked into violating copyrights because material was offered for a fee.
Both cases could be argued as a form of entrapment.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Yes, Very funny :)
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
Civilians in the USA CANNOT be held without pressing charges.
Prisoners of war can be held until the war is over.
Last I heard Al Queda has not Surrendered. So what we are doing is perfectly legal.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Too bad the article is so anemic on details. BitTorrent is a relatively decentralized network. Even if you are running the trackers and watching what everyone is doing, there's any number of people connected in various states of downloading. Why did they decide on this guy, and how did they catch him? Anyone?
-R
...a maximum of 4 years in prison and $6,400 fine for every copy distributed without copyright owner's permission.
Cop: Let's make a deal, you plead guilty of first degree murder and you get free on parole after 20 years... or else we charge you for these 100 illegally distributed movies and you get 400 years.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
"The truth is that the Hong Kong street vendors selling pirated copies of movies, software, etc are taking a beating from the people choosing to use P2P methods of obtaining their media."
In other words crooks are being hurt by other crooks. Irony at it's finest.*
*There's one thing to keep in mind about thieves and their means of correction vs content providers means of correction. The former have no rules standing in their way. The latter at least do (however inadequate you all may feel them to be).
Why was this guy bothering with bittorrent, when he could have easily bought these movies for HK$10 (~US$1.50) or less a piece?
And since when do the HK police actually *arrest* you for dealing with pirated goods? Even avoiding the known areas that deal exclusively with pirated stuff, I was still seeing CDRs for sale in stores along side otherwise legitimate merchandise. About the worst I'd hear about would be they'd announce when they were going to sweep for pirated goods, and all the stores would mysteriously be closed that day. A week later, it was business as usual.
The impression I got from folks there is that the pirate industry is so large, ubiquitous and well organized that many legitimate companies don't even bother trying to import their goods anymore. The pirates are too fast and too cheap to compete against. As a result, just about *everyone* buys pirated goods and doesn't give it a second thought.
We don't have, nor should we expect, the right to pirate movies.
That's not the issue, not by a mile.
What rights are you willing to surrender so that the state and corporations may more effectively combat piracy?
Your rights most certainly are affected by the laws, many created just recently, that protect intellectual property holders. The Betamax decision, which made home taping legal, is being eroded at an ever increasing pace. The powers-that-be are actively seeking an end-around against Fair Use and the Doctrine Of First Sale.
You know this, right? You're supposed to know this, this is Slashdot. Idiots like me blather and foam about this stuff all day.
I remember back in the 1990s, before China took over Hong Kong, that China executed 27 Windows OS pirates by hanging. If China is that draconian in Hong Kong, where people actually have an effect when they complain about the government, what is going on in the rest of the country, out of reach of cushy EurAmerican journalists?
--
make install -not war
Mentioning it only smacks of propoganda.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded...to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit... However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity... Entrapment
I agree 100% that we need to be wary of our rights erroding, but what does someone getting arrested for violating copyright in order to distribute movies, facilitatiting copyright infringement really have to do with laws like the DMCA or anti-P2P laws (or the Sonny Bono copyright act) that do threaten our rights?
And by maybe 2010 you won't have, or would you expect, the right to:
1) watch a movie on any device you want
2) make a backup copy of any information you own
3) loan a movie to a friend (you do now, don't you? do you report yourself to the nearest police station? does the guilt overwhelm you?)
4) learn how movie-playing devices work
5) share the knowledge publicly, with your name on it, without fear of having your computer taken by the state?
6) use next-generation information sharing networks, even if the information is available with the consent of the "rights holder"
7) install any software you want on your computer, including software you wrote
8) avoid advertisements you don't want to see
But hey.. if they eliminate some "pirates" along the way, we're all better off, right?
Yes, but each time you do that you half (or worse) the bandwidth.
This is already a big problem on bittorrrent and similar file sharing methods - the majority of residential connections have an upload an quarter or even an eighth of their download - usually 30KB/sec or 45KB/sec.
Let's say you have a NAT router per person, and you've just dropped the speed to 15 or 22.5KB/sec.
This sadly isn't good enough though. The RIAA/MPAA can just set up one router and that's it - they have you.
You really need two so you can say that you were just routing on someone elses behalf. You are now at 7.5KB/sec or 11.25KB/sec which is approaching dialup speeds.
Basically NAT routers are not the answer. Encryption is, but it means you have to trust everyone you share with, which is not very efficent in the world of 'share with 15,000 people'.
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
Unless you're arrested under the wonderfully American, Liberal and Not Bad In Any Way PATRIOT act. Then you can be detained indefinately without charge.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
>disingenuity at its best!
>Look, it's illegal to photocopy books.
It's illegal to photocopy some books. I have several which can be legally photocopied. I have a great many more which cannot be legally photocopied, but I see no moral reason that should be so.
>Everybody understands why, ...
My understanding is that (ignoring the history, and focusing on the current state of the U.S. law) all copyrighted material is protected indefinitely (perhaps eternally) so that a few big media outfits with big lobbying budgets can enjoy a monopoly at my and your expense.
> ... and yet I'm only capturing photons with a photocopier. Right? Well, same with bytes that encode a movie.
Are you saying that illegal == wrong? Does it follow from that that legal == right? Just curious.
Getting back on topic for this thread, I agree with the GP post's assertion that copyright violations aren't theft, in any sense of the word. That's why they are not called theft in the law, and are not covered by laws which prohibit theft, and so on.
Copyright violations are the ``crime'' of violating a monopoly established by the government to benefit another at your expense.
See what I've been reading.
There is a difference between taking dangerous and irrational steps to stop piracy and taking prudent measures to punish piracy when it is discovered. I agree that we have to protect these 8 rights you speak of, in order to do so we have to punish people who abuse those rights to get stuff for free. Thus, I say good one more pirate captured.
Yeah in other news people who violate laws get punished. Film at 11.
Though no, I'm sure a super sekret team led by the FB-AY was first on the scene, guns blazing to arrest this poor innocent person.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Typically, you are responsible in some fashion for crimes committed with your property. You may not be 100% culpable, but you are most definately not totally innocent. For example, if somebody takes your gun out of the closet and shoots somebody with it, you won't be charged with the murder, but you could very possibly be held liable in a civil suit for negligence, and would have to prove that you took sufficient steps to insure your firearm could not be used for criminal activities.
I ain't evil, I'm just good looking.
"Criminal use of Internet" for those "Your Rights Online" articles for which it does not really apply.
Just a thought.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I wasn't aware there was a declaration of war agains Al Queda. Can there be prisoners of war without a war? How does one even declare a war against a group with no boundaries or fixed locations?
I ain't evil, I'm just good looking.
Associated Press says a 38-year-old was arrested in Hong Kong for uploading Daredevil, Red Planet and Miss Congeniality via a BitTorrent client.
He should have been arrested for his taste in movies.
As much as it sucks, it's "alright" for the *AA to put up a file, wait for someone to download it, then sue them. It's not ethical or just, but they can do it. This is a sting. It's the same as an undercover officer posing as a hooker, then arresting someone who propositions her. In that case, she is there as a law is being wilfully broken by someone.
Unless the officer goes up to someone and says "Do you want to have sex with me for money?". THEN it is entrapment. In that case, the officer is coercing or encouraging someone to break a law, which they may not have done in the first place.
If the *AA were to entrap people, they would have to send you an email saying "I have Daredevil to download, click here to do it.", or something similar. Then they are inviting you to break the "law", and are entraping you.
One could argue that making a file available to download from a P2P is "inviting the law to be broken", but it wouldn't stand up in court. Their lawyers would just argue that the IP-infringer knew what they were doing, because they wilfully typed the name of a copyrighted movie into a search engine, and that search engine exists to allow someone who /wants/ to download something find it.
There's lots of ways to fight one of these lawsuits. Entrapment isn't one of them.
PS: Just to make things clear... screw the *AAs. I am in no way advocating what they are doing is right-- I'm just providing advice on how to kick their butts. =)
UTF-8: There and Back Again
A lot of those are either already illegal (in many cases at least) or are very, very dangerously close to being that way. I would put the target somewhere below 2010.
Le français vous intéresse?
Except many people held in Cuba are not members of "Al Queda"...
Oh that and what the USA did in Iraq was a war crime....
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I seen it in a documentary on BBC2....
But when thousands of people die from genocide, when chemical weapons are used or when building collapse on hundreds of people in a foreign country, we don't even make them footnotes in the foreign news sections of our newspapers.
If we act to stop it, we're bitched at for being war-mongers who are just in it for oil/cheap labor/ blah blah blah.
The shittiness of your country is YOUR PROBLEM TO SOLVE. It was your choice to live like animals.
Fuck you, rest of the world.
Love, America
Depends on where you live. Some countries dont honor said copyright protection from a different country.
Nor do some people. Like myself.
I used to, but with how the *AA's are acting, F-em.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Please prove that all prisoners currently held in Guantanamo Bay are members of Al Queda.
Also, presumably since the US of A also has a "War on Drugs", suspected drug dealers and pot smokers can be held without charge indefinitely until all illegal drugs are gone too???
- PS. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R where eliminated.
Yes, but each time you do that you half (or worse) the bandwith.
Why would that be? Do you have an extremely slow NAT router? After all, it's only replacing 32 bits per packet- based on MAC address tables. That should take a matter of clock cycles, not half the bandwidth.
This is already a big problem on bittorrrent and similar file sharing methods - the majority of residential connections have an upload an quarter or even an eighth of their download - usually 30KB/sec or 45KB/sec.
This has NOTHING to do with NAT- you can have a single machine on that same connection and it will have a slow upload. The reason for the slow upload is what the person is willing to pay for a connection- some broadband types like cable and ADSL have throttled down upload speeds (mine at home, for instance, is 128kbaud up, 758kbaud down).
Let's say you have a NAT router per person, and you've just dropped the speed to 15 or 22.5KB/sec.
Not so- in reality you have EXACTLY the same throughput through a NAT router if the router has a fast microprocessor- because it takes far less time to replace those 32 bits properly in the packet than it does to transmit the packet.
This sadly isn't good enough though. The RIAA/MPAA can just set up one router and that's it - they have you.
What does what they do on their side do to what I do on my side? All I need is a WIFI NAT router, with a cantenna, using a connection that isn't mine. There's no way they can trace me, because I've got the NAT DHCP of the company I'm stealing the bandwidth from, and the NAT DHCP of my router, between my machine and the backbone.
You really need two so you can say that you were just routing on someone elses behalf. You are now at 7.5KB/sec or 11.25KB/sec which is approaching dialup speeds.
If your assertation was true, that might be so- but it isn't. I routinely get less than 5ms loss on ping time between my NATed LAN and the net- and NO measurable loss of bandwith at all.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
From raiding preschools?
No, we got them from battle with al Queda.
In my eyes that is proof enough.
You can insist that they were Taliban soldiers, but the Taliban fought for al Queda, so they are one in the same.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
The authorities don't really care... this is just an exercise so they can say they "do care"... right.
A quick walk along many of the backstreets reveals Polo shirts, LV bags, and more copy VCD/DVDs than Blockbuster has.
They even have police that are designated to patrol these areas to reduce crime... so you can't possibly tell me that they "don't know" or "can't see" this... in fact that actively acknowledge it. If they REALLY wanted to shut it all down, they could do it in 1 day. Simple fact is that this stuff is all USA copyright, and China couldn't really care less about USA stuff... in fact they'd probably just tell the USA to shove it if it weren't for international relations and all that. You really think communist/socialist China cares al about the RIAA? Ha.
**FREE** Track and view your phone's via CellID and/or WIFI and/or GPS
I find it disturbing this comment was modded funny because it's true.
Fashion clothing is sold directly from china, and other parts of asia on ebay, and it's almost always fake.
What gives with this 4years, $6400, per copy? Seriosly avg movie costs $20, and is worth only $7. Seems like 2 hours prison time per copy would be more appropriate.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
How does one even declare a war against a group with no boundaries or fixed locations?
We don't need to, they declared war on us through their actions.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
This is only a rights issue if you believe people have the right to steal.
If the people selling those films wanted other people to have the right to make copies, they would have explicitly sold those rights. They are the source and origin of those rights. The only rights anyone else had in those films are the rights transfered to them from the film's creators.
Such opinions are usually trashed by the Luddite set around here. Of course, they can't present a convincing argyment that their rights to copy a copyrighted work come from someone other than the work's creator.
It's also not a technology issue. Cheers to the Hong Kong authorities for going after the people using the tool, not the tool itself.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I know piracy is illegal, but isn't that penalty a bit steep?
How much would he be fined if he stole and distributed a box of 100 DVDs of similar content.
It also said that he uploaded it to a web site. If he was using BT it is obviously technically wrong.
If I was going to punish the person, I would let the punishment fit the crime. The punishment would be similar to the punishment of theft of physical DVD/VHS movies. I understand there are differences, but it would just be used as a guideline.
My last rant is why haven't they tried to cleanup the people who sell the downloads for 10 bucks a pop in the Big Apple (and other cities). I go to Canal street and have to go one block back before people are chanting "CDs DVDs CDs DVDs" and peddling their pirated copies.
Isn't selling the content without paying royalties or being licensed worse?
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
> Prisoners of war can be held until the war is over.
They're not prisoners of war. They're "illegal combatants". Which includes folks like drivers, who were never in combat.
Isn't it awful convenient to have a war of truly global scope? Where the battlefield is everywhere, the combatants are anyone, and the length is for all time? Who exactly are the combatants if every enemy is an illegal combatant?
Even if they're Bad People we're holding, we've utterly eradicated all global goodwill, degraded our past alliances, and probably diminished prospects of future cooperation in our happy little forever-war. Think pragmatically for a moment.
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
What an excellent place to be. Go to jail for sharing files, and get rich by forcing 13 year school girls to work as bargirls to pay off family debts (don't tell me otherwise; I have been there....).
The neoliberals want to make America like Hong Kong. How thoughtful of them!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Why did the officer shoot his/her gun to start with? And why the wild shot? Aren't officiers suppose to err on the side of caution, and if there are any civilians around that could even POSSIBLY be harmed, they aren't allowed to shoot??
**FREE** Track and view your phone's via CellID and/or WIFI and/or GPS
Only the government can be guilty of entrapment in the legal sense. I'm sure you'd have a case if it turned out it was the **AA actually offering the files, but it wouldn't be entrapment.
English is easier said than done.
I'm not arguing that they are only numbers, but what if one of the parties wasn't aware of this correlation? Are they still guilty? How do you prove which party is guilty? What if person A puts up a block of random numbers for mathematical research purposes, and person B takes it and secretly XORs it with The Copyrighted Blockbuster (TCB) and then puts the result up on his website, purportedly for the same purpose. Obviously XORing them together yields TCB, so someone is lying, but that doesn't mean they are both guilty, but it is not trivial to find out who it is. This is not a foolproof solution, but it is simple enough for anyone to understand how it works. I am sure there are more effective solutions too. My point is that both people can't automatically be liable, because they both needn't have been involved in the infringement.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
I had expected arrests to start after reading this, but that was only some days ago. Evans must be pleased.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Both 'halves' needn't be responsible, or even know about it for that matter. If I put up a block data that XORs with your website to make a copyrighted ebook, obviously, I am guilty, and not you. But obviously there are cases that aren't so clear.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
In theory the law in Hong Kong and China are different. Both has copyright law. How tight they are enforced are a different issue.
There's a problem with that: RTC v. Netcom. (see Netcom, 907 F. Supp. 1361 (ND Cal 1995))
2 5 )
If someone can create a filesharing system where traffic is routed from one node to another, and when a node routes it hides the identities of the parties it communicates with, then filesharing becomes safe again.
Just as in RTC v. Netcom, where the Religious Technology Center (a.k.a. Scientology) attempted to sue Netcom (and was denied), automated acts of routing on a filesharing network will probably be found NOT to be contributory copyright infringement.
In other words, if your network is arranged like this:
Client <----> Server
then either side can turn in the other side, as the parent post described. However, if your network is arranged like this:
Client <--> Node 1 <--> Node 2 <--> Server
then unless someone controls all of the systems in a particular communication path, they can't learn the identity of all of the nodes they don't control.
(See an earlier article, at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/10/20492
One of the problems with this kind of routing system is fair division of labor. For this kind of P2P system to work (where your client must route data that it didn't actually request) the system must be designed well enough to distribute a burden of anonymous-routing to your client which corresponds with the amount of anonymous-routing load you're placing on the rest of the network. But how can people measure how much data you're sending and receiving, if they can't know who you are?
I don't have a solution for that problem, but it's not unsolvable.
So the question then becomes, will the general public begin to prefer a filesharing system that must transfer 400 MB of data over the network for every 100 MB of information it saves to disk, if that system is nearly impossible to audit or prosecute?
--Michael Spencer
Yet again I'll say it, why are they prosecuting the people "uploading" when they should be prosecuting the people DOWNloading. Do I need to lock up my DVD's and CD's because someone could potentially come by and grab one and copy it? Am I liable?
Well for one, they arn't trained enough. See the enforcement officers aren't cops, they are civillians from the Ministry of Trade enforcement unit.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
And exactly when did the USA declare war on Al Queda?
Never. It is not a war, despite the fact that the US administration chooses to use that word to dscribe the situation.
A dream is good. A plan is better.
Ok, the article says that a fine for up to $6,400 for each copy ditributed. But let's say there were only 98%, 83%, and 4% of each movie actually transferred. Does that still constitute a full copy of each movie?
More 'effective' ammunition then would be a way of bypassing your legal system by having fewer suspects survive to stand trial.
The question then is whether the deaths of, potentially innocent, suspects that might have otherwise survived being shot is a fair price to pay to reduce risk to bystanders. I am unconvinced there is an easy answer.
...Meanwhile, piracy contiunes unabated in the popular Mongkok Computer Center. Somebody obviously didn't bribe the right offical, because this is a joke, quite honestly. Or maybe from the movie industry standpoint, somebody did bride the right offical.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
The upcoming generation of file sharing tools make anonymous sharing pretty simple.
MUTE for instance uses virtual adresses so only your direct neighbours know your real IP. But because every packet you receive from the network is encrypted by the sender node, your direct neighbours can't determine weather you are downloadig legal stuff or not.
If the someone taps one of your neighbour nodes, no harm done, because the network sends the packets to you through several paths, and thus he would have to tap every neighbour node you have, to get all packets and then be able to decrypt your data (strong encryption).
Naturally your neighbours are not geographic neighbours, so if someone wants to prove that you leeched some copyrighted movies, he might end up in tapping several nodes in different counties.
I admit, MUTE is not 100% anonymous but for me 99,99% is just fine. Here is a more detailed description on how MUTE works.
America has been raping the Japanese and pillaging their culture since the end of WWII??? Uso!
My other first post is car post.
In Hong Kong, there is no law against buying pirate products. The law only states that selling/distributing pirate products is illegal. But the authorities are trying to http://www.info.gov.hk/cib/ehtml/pdf/consultation/ 2004copyright_e.pdf/change that, though.
If person A has no idea that person B has used their number as a key to get TCB, I would have to say that person A would not be guilty. If person B puts up the encrypted version but doesn't tell anyone what it is or how to decrypt it, person B hasn't distributed TCB. In order for anyone to get TCB, they would have to know the secret, and the person that gives away the secret would be the one guilty of distributing TCB.
Proving guilt in court would be much more difficult, but covering your tracks doesn't make an act any more legal.
It isn't theft. Neither is printing a copy of Ender's Game.
It's called copyright violation.
Well, it's under the same umbrella. Perhaps this bust is justified. Doesn't mean the next one will be. This sort of incident can be used to push for tougher laws and tougher enforcement of those laws, and further erosion of your fair use rights.
Jose Padilla. US citizen. Born in Brooklyn. Detained in the US. No charge. No trial. Indefinite.
What fascinates me most is not that a govenment flouts their own constitution so blatantly - What's much more interesting is the state of denial so many of that country's citizens are in.
Swiss Franc.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
"...a 38-year-old was arrested in Hong Kong for uploading Citizen Kane, Rashomon and Andrei Rublev via a BitTorrent client."
I would guess he meant routing your packages through other users of the P2P network which means they must download and re-upload your download-traffic.
Linux is not Windows
You disguise who is the client, and who is the server. Arguably, this means that you must act as a proxy for data. By its very nature, that means the network would be vastly slower. Imagine:
Direct:
A - B
A - C
B - C
Proxy:
A - C - B
A - B - C
B - A - C
Already you have double the connections, and halve the effective bandwidth. Freenet for instance, operates with TTLs up to 25. This means your bandwidth is reduced to 1/25th, making a 1Mbit connection act more like a 40kbit modem. In addition, let's say each node is 95% reliable. The chance it'll make it through is 0.90^25 = 7%. That makes your 40kbit line a 3kbit line.
There will be anonymous networks that do this better. But I imagine that even an effective anonymous network will reduce the bandwidth by an order of magnitude, if not three such as Freenet. (Just my unofficial numbers, 704k/s DSL line = ~2k Freenet traffic).
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
yeah but the last blockbusters outlet closed recently in hong kong :( .. I prefer originals without any xvid sh!t.
So the question then becomes, will the general public begin to prefer a filesharing system that must transfer 400 MB of data over the network for every 100 MB of information it saves to disk, if that system is nearly impossible to audit or prosecute?
That's basically what usenet does, and the 400 MB of data for 100 MB of information is basically what UU-Encoding does. Except I think it's 3:1 rather than 4:1. So I'd say that by and large, the vast majority of the general public probably doesn't prefer a system like this, but a still significant number of them do.
Keith D.
For most police forces, the use of firearms falls under lethal force. That is, you only fire your weapon if the assailant presents a lethal threat and when you shoot, you shoot to stop the threat -- in other words, you shoot to kill.
You don't shoot to wound, you don't try to shoot his arms or legs. That kind of movie stunt can get innocent people harmed by the assailant.
"Shooting to wound" is a myth, IMHO.
Hollowpoint bullets are usually more lethal/effective than full metal jacketed bullets, especially in the case of handgun ammunition.
Ever hear of the "dum dum" rounds which were declared illegal for warfare because of their "inhuman" nature? Combatants caught with dum dum bullets in their pockets were often executed on the spot by enraged and fearful soldiers.
Dum dum bullets were basically just hollowpoints which expand on impact. But that's the reason why militaries only use full metal jacketed rounds.
Having said that, modern ballistics design has made FMJ rounds almost as effective as hollowpoints, especially for rifle caliber ammo.
You don't anonymously receive and send packets on the Internet, you have a designated IP address and that can be followed to you.
That's where designs like Freenet (also Freenet) come in. You can trade ease and bandwidth-efficiency for a smidgeon of anonymity -- not in the sense of "they can't tell I'm running Freenet", but in the lesser plausible deniability sense: "I didn't ask for that file; I was just relaying another node's requests."
In theory, a Freenet node is supposed to cache all of the requests that pass through it, but in practice, it doesn't work very well just yet.... Well, maybe if we're lucky, our children will have free speech before they die.
A buccaneer
Thank you. I'll be here all night.
It's the battle of the minds, and everyone's unarmed.
Of course not. I'm arguing that all rights inherent in any created work come into existence simultaneously with that work's creation, and that those rights belong, exclusively, to thework's creator. The only possible way for anyone else to acquire any of those rights is by transfer from the work's creator.
This applies for any created work, not just those to which copyright law applies.
Copyright law typically asserts that the work's creator maintains those rights for a specificed period of time. If copyright law does not apply, as it does not to most of the things we make, then those rights are maintained in perpetuity.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
uh oh! maybe this isn't my first account
My old one got deep sixed due to Slashdot's idiotic moderation system. My karma went from Excellent to terrible in one post thanks to a ton of +1 Funny and -1 Troll/Flaimbait/Overrated moderations.
They also kill people, and use eye patches that they really don't need, just for intimidating reasons.
Copyright infringement is not, in any way, related to piracy. That is just a marketing stunt, no more valid that the last Coca-Cola slogan.
A line should be drawn between marketing and reality: people who download mp3s and movies are freeloaders, copyright infringers, in many cases not even that. Calling someone a pirate is just a way to say they are bad, but that implies killing, raping and sailing. Don't keep doing that, please.
Even then, there wouldn't be a 50% bandwidth cut for every single re-upload; there would only be a throttling down to the slowest bandwidth in the total chain. The only way you'd drop to the bandwidth he was talking about would be to have a dialup user in the chain.
If the rumors about Qualcom's Sears Service Transport protocol are true (a mesh of NATed WiFi linking truck to truck back to broadband at the service depot, up and down our nation's freeways (you can see this if you're wardriving- *-SST-* SSIDs are everywhere!)) then it's entirely possible to get 11MBit service out of such a system- assuming of course that the connection the the physical net can handle that speed.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
what if he never fully distributed a copy? say the last chunk of the file (however big, depends on the chunk size in the .torrent) didn't get sent out by him ... I would think the burden to prove that he send out *full* copies would be on the prosecution, and almost impossible to prove. unelss they simply went on the amount of data he sent out, then it could not be pretty
I think that they way you lumped DeCSS in with Kazaa (clearly different things in my mind) and then explain how Kazaa was designed for piracy is a perfect example of what might happen to BitTorrent. We have one example of a person arrested for violating copyright using BitTorrent and some people are going to equate it with Kazaa and all the Spyware and shady Vanuatu Incorporation that goes along with the Sharman networks.
It is sad that people are using BitTorrent for unlawful things because it is likely to make it more difficult for others to do lawful things with it.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Anonymous? Typical slashbot. Oh no, my precious Karma!
Have a visit to Hong Kong soon.
I was stating the rule, not the practice. Yes, I am fully aware that the only thing that will save this country is a full-out revolution.
Bored? Why not join a decent mess
No.
On the scale of the network you lose 50% each time. Why?
Let's do it the 'direct way' - as Bittorrent does now. Each user to each user.
Let's say we have 2 users @ 30kbyte/sec upload. Both of them upload to the network @ 60kbyte/sec.
Now let's say the first user connects to the second user to upload to another user (one proxy). The first user uploads at 30k/sec, but the second user also has to upload data _that is most likely useless to him_ at 30k/sec.
You've effectively starved the network out of 50% of it's bandwidth - it's not a good way to go.
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
Nope- you missed the point. The NAT Proxy isn't to get multiple users to connect. The purpose of the NAT proxy is to protect the user's identity. So no, the first user doesn't have to connect to a second USER, instead he connects to the local NAT router.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.