Slashdot Mirror
Legal Torrent Sites Help Legitimize BitTorrent
Jeff writes "In today's Seattle Times, technology columnist Paul Andrews highlights how legal torrent sites such as CommonBits may lead to wider adoption and acceptance of BitTorrent. With reports that illegal torrent usage may be more than a third of Internet traffic, sites like LegalTorrents, Torrentocracy, Prodigem and bt.etree may offer a compelling defense to future legal attacks while simultaneously promoting fair use rights. Andrews goes on to argue that the future of television may be no further away than integration of podcasting, RSS, tagging and BlogTorrent."
With reports that illegal torrent usage may be more than a third of Internet traffic
The reports state that BitTorrent use may be more than a third of Internet traffic. They don't state that illegal BitTorrent use may be more than a third of Internet traffic.
You've just gone and assumed that BitTorrent is exclusively illegal, while moaning about the fact that others do it too. Way to go, dickhead.
Get it from http://www.bittorrent.com.
The license has changed to the BitTorrent Open Source License
Release Notes:
It's not about attacks against pirates, it's against legal attacks against the program creators (ie. holding the owners of a p2p network responsible for its users).
I guess people outside Russia dowloading from the site are still in breach of copyright in their own country?
I find it hard to think of torrent as anything other than another transmission protocol.
/. Would start torrent/mirroring it.....
I know it isn't since it is acting at another layer, but for all purposes how is it different from tcpip?
I think if it was bundled with a browser websites would start using this for load balancing. People that love
I know it wouldn't work like that, but I can see a lot of potential in bittorrent for legal purposes
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
I find it quite weird to think that people will actually write to me and ask if I "still have a torrent for [movie] lying around". Who in their right mind would advertise the fact they're looking for something which to download would be a violation of copyright?? And yet I've actually seen exactly this happening... (Background: I run a small tarpit to trap illegal seekers, idiots, the MPAA and spammers - with success on all counts.)
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Therefore, a single knife can be used both legally and illegally, but downloading from a single torrent can only be legal or illegal. Therefore, your analogy does not work.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that's not true. Depending on the jurisdiction, there are knives that are legal to possess, and knives that are illegal to possess -- switchblades, pocket knives over a certain length, etc. The act of acquiring the knife, like the act of acquiring the file, is itself illegal.
I don't have the patience to figure out whether either of you is making sense otherwise. Please continue.
Alot of replies have mentioned that people may be "infringing copyright by downloading blah" .. This is completely wrong.
.. The right to copy something. If you download a file, you are not making a copy of it. The uploader is. It's a fine line of course, but essentially they have the object in question and their software is reading the contents of that object and sending copies to you.
.. or a blank betamax tape.
Copyright is exactly what it sounds like
Downloading _anything_ cannot possibly be a violation of copyright. It is a physical impossibility.
Nobody has ever been prosecuted, sued, or legally harrassed in any way, in any of the countries that most english-speakers would consider worth mentioning, for only downloading copyrighted material. The infringment occurs in providing it to others.
Bittorrent as both a program and a protocol is no more illegal than Apache or HTTP.
Instead of saying , the MPAA this, the MPAA that have you ever tried sending them an email and actually asking them what their position is? Jesus it takes someone as stupid as me to make an informed post.
Dear Oliver,
Thanks for your e-mail.
While Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks allow for a great deal of opportunity
for distribution of entertainment, P2P networks unfortunately enable
massive amounts of pirate activity.
When people upload or download others' copyrighted works, that is, in
fact, illegal. There is nothing illegal about P2P technologies, if
you're sharing work that you have the rights to share. But, most
commercial works you find available on P2P networks (e.g., albums you
find in stores, movies you find in theatres or stores) were not posted
there legally.
It is only this illegal activity that the MPAA is fighting against. We
will continue to embrace technology and the opportunities it offers
responsible citizens using it legally.
Thanks again for writing, and please let me know if you have additional
questions.
Anne
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I'm not sure if that was ever decided by a court - rather it appears that scare tactics caused them to be shut down. For that reason, I personally don't feel comfortable declaring linking to content hosted on other systems illegal.
It can be illegal. A significant part of what Napster did was to provide links for downloaders to information that was hosted by uploaders. They didn't host mp3s themselves, but could still be held responsible for their users.
First, there must be a direct infringement. For example, uploading or downloading a video in an infringing manner.
Then there can either be contributory or vicarious infringement by a different party. Contributory infringement is where a party materially contributes to the direct infringement of another, while knowing of the infringing activity. Vicarious infringement is having the right and ability to control the direct infringements of others, and receives a sufficiently direct financial benefit from the infringement. Where a party is either a contributory or vicarious infringer, they can be held liable for the direct infringements that underlie their liability.
It's entirely possible for the providers of a torrent file, or even for people providing an index or search of torrent files, to be infringers. There are some steps that can be taken to protect oneself to a degree (see 17 USC 512, or Sony v Universal, for example) but there's a very real risk.
You might want to read the Napster case to see how it can shake out.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
You're assuming the copyright laws of your country apply everywhere. For example, it is generally legal to download copyrighted works in Canada.
"For backup purposes only" has been a myth of the warezmonkey world since the 80s. Please don't perpetuate it.