Slashdot Mirror
BayTSP Provides Automatic DMCA Notices
ruvreve sent in a pointer that BayTSP is promising to identify Bittorrent uploaders for the entertainment industry to file suit against. Slashdot has run numerous stories discussing what happens when you automate DMCA takedown notices - see also chillingeffects.org.
BayTSP, a leading provider of online intellectual property monitoring and compliance systems, announced FirstSource, an automated system that identifies the first users to upload copyright- or trademark-protected content to the eDonkey and Bit Torrent peer-to-peer (P2P) networks.
So, in other word, the new legal environment (the DMCA) is attracting more and more profiteers and schemers, like putting cheese attracts mold. It's sad that some people would want to earn a living hurting other people by leveraging a law almost nobody wants...
But the good news is: if automated monitoring of P2P protocols becomes commonplace, you can bet there will be other, new exciting development in P2P technology. Perhaps some kind of "stealth" protocol will be developed. After all, it's the Napster suit that prompted the development of central-server-less protocols like Bittorrent. So effectively the people "route around" the new legal roadblocks, and are prompted to do so because of scumbags like BayTSP and their disgusting masters, the **AA.
Wasn't one of the reasons Napster died mainly because of so many falsified names thus resulting in a very hard time finding what you are looking for ?
And isn't this just exactly what you are suggesting ?
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com
Not if they're contracted by the owners of that content.
Well, the RIAA has been putting fake files on P2P networks in hopes for the same result. (polluting the network, discouraging the "offender")
Didn't really work, just gave them additional problems. People just migrated to other networks of systems which aren't polluted as much valid files or just cause the new protocol is an improvement(bittorrent). Others'll just keep on trying until they found a correct version.
Would polluting the webpages serving bittorrents, or setting up "copyright-bot-traps" discourage people who have vast amounts of financial resources and are determined millons of people owe them money?
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
If you can use DMCA so force *GOOGLE* to remove a link to a *GPL* Firmware, it has to be seriously broken...
? NoticeID=1471
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi
If I remember correctly, I was taught in school that the government represented the people...
For piracy, it's just another brick in the wall.
... that the cost of threatening legal action without any basis whatsoever is too low for these big corporations. The legal system has become a way for big corporations to push individuals and small companies around and basically create a parallel state were the punishment for any behavior big corporations doesn't like is litigation.
is that theres something wrong with society when society is breaking laws at such an extent that it requires an automated process to identify and punish those offenders. Yes, automated processes catch innocents, especially as some on this page have suggested if they deliberately make themselves look guilty when they arent (if they carried around a white powder in a bag, they would expect to get arrested by the police if its discovered - wheres the difference?). But then again, why should it be costly for the 'victim' in these cases to bring offenders to justice? Kazaa has well over several million files available for download, why should the RIAA/MPAA have to spend inordiant amounts of money just to defend their property?
This is all a personal opinion, but if slashdot isnt the place to voice it, then where is? Copyright Law exists, and it exists for a reason. You do not own 'Britney Spears - Toxic.mp3', and you do not have a right to give it to other people. If you wanted to have that right, make your own music, distribute that, but until then dont think you have any rights to other peoples intellectual property. Intellectual property laws exist for reasons, one of which is that it may be costly to initially develop, but cheap to manufacture.
Mod this as you will, I dont care. I know slashdot is heavily biased, and I can expect damnation. What I do care about is that I have had my say.
I think the problem here is that any normal person can see the greed of the RIAA and MPAA and thier so called piracy is beyond any form of reasonability.
They are like the 2 year olds screaming "mine, mine, mine" without any rhyme or reason.
Copyright Piracy IS when you take a movie or song, duplicate it on a media like a CD or DVD, and SELL it as if it was genuine.
Sharing a song with a friend so that friend can decide if it is really good enough to BUY, is not worng in my opinion.
What if the movie or song is just bad, rotten, trash? You cet to decide to be a "CUSTOMER" or not based on if you like the product. Having to pay these greedy folks just because you heard the horible song or watched even some of the lousy movie is not PIRACY by any rational thought process.
The RIAA and MPAA do not want customers where they have a choice, but CONSUMERS ready to be culled.
This whole thing gets too much press, and to many good people are being called thieves because of the greed of the RIAA, MPAA.
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
i dont think its the tracker that is doing the uploading and downloading of data or else it would have a really hard time to cope with the bandwidth
and if it is how it works, it just make **AA's life easy to only go after the trackers
I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs
I'd hate to be growing up today and forced to deal with such Gestapo tactics. Unless you've taken the most careful steps in each and every action you take, someone has at least the ability to watch your every move. We have antiquated copyright laws which never expected a world where communication really was so cheap and so ubiquitous (let's face it, I agree with the **AA on this one, times have changed and our laws have to change with them, I just disagree on how they should change). Slashdot doesn't really help the matter; people still think the enemy is the DMCA, as though copyright law can't be enforced without the DMCA and ISPs won't cooperate with the **AA without a court order.
If you're going to look at the law, you've gotta look at copyright law. Reversing the No Electronic Theft Act would be a good start. But perhaps the biggest enemy is the music industry (and movie industry). In that sense, we have a choice. We don't have to buy, or listen to, (and get addicted to) **AA music and movies. And for sure we don't have to work for the bastards.
I'm seeing talk of SSH and other forms of obscurity to mask uploader's privacy... Face it, the protocol doesn't work like that folks. You want to hide the trackers? Great, now no one can get the files. Seeds and peers are what make torrents work. The fact is, your IP is up for grabs the moment you connect. Why it has taken them so long to figure this out is the real question at hand. Until proper bandwidth exists to allow all users to act as a proxy, torrents are destined to fail. The MPAA and RIAA's worst enemy is time and bandwidth will be the sword in their chests. Music will always be created for profit or simply the love of the art form. Say goodbye to the corporate trash being forced down our throats. It is a good time for music. However, the big budget nature of movies and our inability to realize that without studio's ability to turn a profit, the death of the pictures as we know them is all but inevitable.
Unless turrents allow downloading without uploading anything, the MPAA attack dogs are just as guilty of doing what they are accusing the ohter end user of.
Don't take me for an MPAA troll, but before you decide to rest easy on this theory, think again. Here's how it breaks down: MPAA highers Snooper; MPAA gives Snooper the right to use files (including the act of uploading) as necessary to catch file sharers; Snooper then uses BT to snoop. In the process, some files may have been uploaded, but because the MPAA expressly allowed the uploads in the context of snooping, Snooper's hands are as clean as whistle.
If given permission, there is nothing inherently illegal about filesharing, Linux ISOs being an excellent example. It's legal because permission is granted. Sharing LOTR is not legal simply because permission is not granted. Anyway, at the risk of being repetitive, you can be certain that the MPAA will give Snooper whatever permission it needs to do its job, including uploading files. The key fact to focus on is not whether files were uploaded, but whether the MPAA gave the uploader permission to upload.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
This just highlights the need for corporate IT personnel to secure their open Wireless Access Points. Because, as you know - with the cheap cost of portable computers and old hardware - someone might end up leaving a Peer-to-Peer node running over an open AP and shift the liability to the AP owner. Think of the real risk given the amount of bandwidth available to most corporations and how long a rogue node could go undetected.
It is clear that those motivated to seed the BT networks of the world could very well end up costing your company in legal fees. So you better set that MAC filtering up right now.
I cannot see how this should impact the "serious" BT filetraders that much. Most clients used nowadays include dynamic blacklists, effectively blocking requests from services such as BayTSP to the torrent? BayTSP can't keep hopping IP's all the time without some ever increasing expenses?
Blacklists don't work. Assume that I am an agent of the (MP)|(RI)AA. I contact a consumer ISP and get a dynamic IP account. I run my scanner from the dynamic IP. There can be any of three results.
#1 because I am on a dynamic IP of a major ISP, I don't get blacklisted, and I can successfully run my scanner.
#2 the dynamic IP that I have now gets blacklisted, so I just release/renew to get a new one.
#3 the entire range that my ISP is using gets blacklisted. I can't run my scanner anymore on that ISP, but their customers can't download files eaither, thereby reducing the number of people participating in piracy. When the blacklist occurs, I simply switch to a new ISP. Repeat until I find an ISP that won't get blacklisted, or until all ISPs get blacklisted.
Under any of the above scenarios, the blacklist is virtually worthless.
They have to be able to download it from the bittorrent network first in order to ascertain that it actually IS their copyright material... more and more bittorrent networks are going "members only" where you have to actually join and log in to the server in order for your IP to be authorised for that torrent... Any sensible network runner will have several clauses in the joining procedure where the prospective new member will have to be reccomended by an existing member or else they'll have to declare that they are not acting for or as agents of RIAA/MPAA etc.
All they're gonna do is drive users with any sense underground... whilst only the newbies with no sense will get picked on...
Expect to see more closed torrent networks springing up... rather like speakeasies did back in the old "Prohibition" days... Prohibition didn't work very well now did it... all it did was make normal people lawbreakers and give an opportunity for organised crime to fill the void created by the lack of easily available drink.
In fact, all the RIAA and MPAA members have got to do is to actually take advantage of bittorrent, and create a perfectly legal means of people getting their hands on movies early in the distribution cycle by making them available on pay per torrent servers, where you actually pay for the privilege of getting the movie first, well before it hits the cinemas.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Doesn't this show how flawed the law is? If Bit Torrent was never intended to facilitate copyright violation, or it would have been much more decentralized, then what's the justification for a lawsuite against bittorrent?
Your point seems to show that all those tossing out metaphors such as "It's like sueing the auto maker for making the getaway car!" are actually right.
When can we expect judges to start chewing out litigants for wasting the court's time on rediculous claims and poppycock legal theories, and actually dismissing cases with prejudice?
Who is John Cabal?