BSA Reacts to 'New' BitTorrent

An anonymous reader writes "It seems the Business Software Alliance isn't afraid of the new, tracker-less BitTorrent beta. While it concedes it will have to 'regroup', Tarun Sawney, BSA Asia anti-piracy director, said BitTorrent files could still be identified. 'BSA has traditionally sought the assistance of those hosting the actual pirated files. With or without the tracker sites, someone still hosts the infringing files.'"

Comments

So what?

[CoolVibe]

BitTorrent was never designed to anonymize. It was designed to distribute the load of hosting a file. A lot of hoopla about a non-issue.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there is always i2p, which Azureus is prepared for anyway. Needs a bit of config, is all.

Re:So what?

[w3weasel]

BitTorrent was never designed to anonymize

For help with that... try this

Vive la BitTorrent! Morte du le BSA!

Re:So what?

[Adult film producer]

please don't advertise i2p right okay. in a few months it will be a different story, the network is fragile right now and the lead coder is on vacation.

Re:So what?

[jim_v2000]

THIS IS NOT FLAMEBAIT!!!

Yeah, BitTorrent anonyminity should be a non issue, except there are so many people out there who abuse it to make illegal copies of games/music/movies. When that happens, it becomes a big issue, expecially for those holding copyrights.

Re:So what?

[rpdillon]

Methlabs' PeerGuardian does not anonymize.

Just to clarify:there are two basic approaches to creating a protected network: making every member of the network anonymous, or creating a trusted network in one way or another.

Projects like I2P and Tor go the first route of making network members anonymous. Freenet does this too, currently (we'll see what the future holds).

PeerGuardian is a tool to block nodes that are known/suspected of being untrustworthy from accessing your computer using IP filters. While this does help, it is a bit of an uphill battle, and certainly doesn't account for the edge case where the **AA simply pays some college student's tuition to report all IPs that are hosting "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith".

In the long run, trusted solutions are much harder to implement, and will become a part of networks that will grow relatively slowly. There are a couple of VPN based "metanets" around right now that follow this model, and most of us don't even know about them, much less use them. Their growth was designed to be slow.

Re:So what?

[Kent Recal]

The link you provided is snake-oil.

This "Peer-Guardian" software does not provide anonymity.
And it does not protect you from anyone (RIAA, Government, not even your
mom).

It's not much more than a blacklist. If the RIAA wants to play sherlock they'll probably just use some random AOL dialup. Go figure.

Someone slap these kids over with a cluestick.

Re:So what?

[russotto]

Aww, poor copyright holders. They used their power over legislators to tighten their grip on copyrights, but now those rights are effectively slipping through their fingers.

Re:So what?

[mrmojo]

Peerguardian isn't perfect. I was DMCA'd while using up-to-date blocklists and the latest version.

Re:So what?

[w3weasel]

not perfect... agreed

please note the phrasing... that P.G. will help rather than completely absolve you from any and all responsiblitiy for your illegal actions

thank god I didn't mispel any wurds! Imagine the lashback!

Re:Copyright?

[leonmergen]

Are but the torrent files do they actually in fringe copyright??

It isn't the .torrent files they're talking about, it's the actual torrent data. They're probably just joining a tracker, and see which ip addresses try to contact their host... not sure if it is enough proof in court, but I can still see they're not scared of this indeed.

Correct

[hotdiggitydawg]

They're right, this changes nothing. At the end of the day someone is still hosting the infringing material, and they're in the firing line.

Re:Correct

[Soybean47]

So, what? They're going to sue everyone who's seeding copyrighted material, and force them to stop? The problem with that is, legal proceedings are slow enough that by the time they go through, those particular seeders would likely have already stopped anyway, and been replaced by new seeders.

It makes the system more fault-tolerant.

Re:Correct

[Metasquares]

It's a lot harder to prove a criminal case ("beyond a reasonable doubt") than a civil one, not to mention the negative publicity that sending "12 year-olds" and "grandma" to jail for downloading files would generate.

Re:Correct

[Harinezumi]

It doesn't make it impossible for them to shut down a torrent, it simply makes it much harder. Instead of having a single site to shut down (the one hosting the tracker) in order to kill the torrent, they now have to shut down everyone with a complete copy (every seed).

This can number into hundreds or thousands of users, with the number constantly changing as people finish their downloads. And if one or more of those seeds happens to be in a foreign country, it may take months or be outright impossible to shut the torrent down.

Re:Correct

[jpetts]

It doesn't make it impossible for them to shut down a torrent, it simply makes it much harder. Instead of having a single site to shut down (the one hosting the tracker) in order to kill the torrent, they now have to shut down everyone with a complete copy (every seed).

I'm not sure they want to do this immediately: if they can keep enough people going through the "$3000 a pop" lawsuits, then they are generating revenue while cowing other potential sharers. Given that their figures for financial loss are pulled straight out of their arses anyway, they really have little to lose, while potentially scaring the shit out of people.

Re:Correct

[rpresser]

Is it possible to DOS a torrent, even partially? Join the tracker, collect IPs for 5 minutes, then initiate thousands of incoming connections?

Re:Correct

[raju1kabir]

Is it possible to DOS a torrent, even partially? Join the tracker, collect IPs for 5 minutes, then initiate thousands of incoming connections?

It's probably hard to find an ISP that would host them if they're engaging in that kind of behavior.

There's currently a mechanism to refuse any further connections from machines that are sending bad data. It would not be hard to make that also apply to connections that don't do anything useful at all. Also, there's a connection limit; it won't accept thousands of connections (I think max 80 by default).

Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Cryofan]

These BSA dictators are paying off politicians to create corporate feudalism. Just like it was in the Middle Ages where private power, those with the most gold, OWNED the humans beings within a certain geographical area, so too has the BSA BOUGHT a part of us. For those BSA funders, and politicians who have enabled this, this is treason, IMHO.

All the CEOs who fund the BSA should be tried for treason, and if convicted, placed in the electric chair, and electrocuted to death. And do the same for their lapdog politicians who give them this power.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[KiloByte]

Yeah, but note whom would have to try them for treason... uhm, isn't that the politicians themselves?

Democracy would fix this just fine. Except for the fact that neither communism nor corporationism don't have anything in common with democracy.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Cryofan]

Yeah, but note whom would have to try them for treason... uhm, isn't that the politicians themselves?

Yeah, whatever. But every task needs to start somewhere: an acknowledgement of the problem, a statement of a solution to solve the problem, etc.

WE NEED TO HANG (or fry) SOME POLITICIANS. That should be really obvious by now. So, if we need to do that, we need to SAY SO, first. I am saying so.

If you agree, then say so. We can go from there. But first we need to acknowledge the problem, and state our goals to reach a solution for that problem.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[osgeek]

Lighten up, Francis.

Software and other content developers trying to protect themselves from pirates is hardly Feudal serfdom.

It's more possible than ever to collect movies, music, and software (that you never paid for) than ever before. Expect corporations to overreact to that theft as much as possible and for equity imbalances to result.

If you were as vocal about protecting the rights of content producers as you are about protecting the rights of "the people", maybe there would be more balance in the situation.

Those of us in the middle are willing to pay for what we use and ask to be paid for what we create. As usual, you warring factions at the extremes make it difficult for the more reasonable people to just live their lives in peace. Nice job.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Cryofan]

Treason? Are you honestly that fucking stupid? Do you even know what treason IS?

Treason is defined in the Constitution as aiding or abetting an enemy of the USA. "Enemy" can be interpreted in more than one way. I see the big corporations as our greatest enemy. You put ME on the Supreme Court bench, indict these sellout politicians for treason, and I will vote to fry these politicians who sell out our country to the corporations.....

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[shani]

Most people either download music, and/or see nothing wrong with it. The "extreme" that you mention is the norm.

It is not possible for every activity to result in somebody getting paid. Neither is this a reasonable goal.

There were no "content producers" for most of human history, yet people made music, works of art, and so on. It will be different, neither better nor worse, if the world returns to a state where people are not paid for making digital recordings.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[slack_justyb]

No this is just capitalism at work. Basically, you don't like what is going on, therefore, you should start your company, get support from others who share your goals, and then setup some sort of group call the anit-BSA (or whatever).

Yeah that's all crap. By the time you get about 25% done some company will just buy you out or you'll be too old to really care anymore.

The thing that always surprises me is that people are actually mad that this thing is going on. Rich people (however defined by a nation's society ) have always had more power than the poor.

For many reasons I won't just say, "get used to it," but a lot of people are just so unmotivated to do anything about it. So this patteren will continue until something rubs a majority of the lowwer class the wrong way. Because, it seems to me, no one does anything until someone jams a hot poker up their ass.

Take away my freedoms... Ok.
Take away my beer... I'll kill you all!

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Cryofan]

Lighten up, Francis.


"Don't ever touch me, or I'll KILL YOU!" /grin...great movie!


If you were as vocal about protecting the rights of content producers as you are about protecting the rights of "the people", maybe there would be more balance in the situation.


Yeah, there ya go! And if the antelope greased himself with lard before being eaten by the lion, it would really help the lion swallow that darn antelope. THe antelope should really be more considerate....

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Cryofan]

No this is just capitalism at work.


And what I am suggesting is DEMOCRACY at work. Ain't it a bitch?


Basically, you don't like what is going on,


You are correct, sir!

therefore, you should start your company, get support from others who share your goals, and then setup some sort of group call the anit-BSA (or whatever).


No, what I am going to do is start a movement to CORRECT our political culture. It has happened many times in the past. Heads rolled. Leaders got their attitudes adjusted. And things improved. We need to teach our leaders a lesson and adjust their attitudes. If you agree, then join me. If not, then get the fuck outta the way....

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[slack_justyb]

No, really I would love to see people actually do something to derail the current track that our country runs on.

This is how I see it. A bunch of people get together and start some crap in DC. In turn, that forces somebody to actually pass a bill (yadda yadda yadda) until it turns into law. People are happy that the law has been made and go on their way. Later, when no one is looking, companies come in pay to get some law passed (yadda yadda yadda) now there is some law that counter-acts everything you just did. Now you have to get your people together, again, and head to DC, again. (repeat)(repeat)(repeat)

You may as well save yourself the trouble and just go shoot the BSA members yourself and blow up all the buildings they work in, otherwise you'll be spending a lot of time running in circles, and if you like running in circles, fine, have fun. I'll just go be a dirt farmer when the shit gets bad and not give a care as to what the hell happens.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Microlith]

Well, generally the idea will be that no one will be paid for making recordings at all, at least in the prospecting sense (invest with hope for return.)

What we'd more than likely get is what you've had for most of history: Rich people paying artists to create works that they themselves like.

And generally it will be considered worse, as the only people who get a say in what's made are the ones who have lots and lots of money. Even then the ones who could shell out that kind of money will be
reluctant to do so if they can't get their money back. Not to mention the sheer plummet in the number of creative works produced.

This will drive a lot of creative people out of various fields. Note that this does not mean the cream of the crop will be left. People who do it for free aren't necessarily good you know.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Lehk228]

you forget one thing, live shows, artists make most of their money on live shows, and while you can record a live show, there is not yet any technology which can recreate the experience of a live show

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[MartinG]

i Yeah, but note whom would have to try them for treason... uhm, isn't that the politicians themselves?

You are thinking of some form of dictatorship. In civilised countries and in the USA, the courts try people.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[sabernet]

And generally it will be considered worse, as the only people who get a say in what's made are the ones who have lots and lots of money. Even then the ones who could shell out that kind of money will be reluctant to do so if they can't get their money back. Not to mention the sheer plummet in the number of creative works produced.

And this is different then now how??

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Luthair]

Well, generally the idea will be that no one will be paid for making recordings at all, at least in the prospecting sense (invest with hope for return.)

A few studies have already show that filesharing has little or no impact on record sales.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[sabernet]

I think you mean, "-Ideally- the courts try people."

Guantanamo Bay anyone?

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[FLEB]

And what I am suggesting is DEMOCRACY at work. Ain't it a bitch?

I suppose that if you got enough people on your side to create a direct vote to remove copyright protection it would be democratic. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be right.

What you do for a living? If you do anything which isn't directly involved in the production of hard, physical goods, I hope you'll come to see the hypocracy in your stance.

The reason copyright protection exists is that creating content takes work, and while the physical nature of many other forms of creation (making physical goods, which cannot be duplicated without a similar expenditure of effort) leads to scarcity that drives a fair asking price, no such natural restrictions exist on content that may take just as much legitimate effort to create. Hence, another method to drive a fair asking price has been created.

Further down the same road, why pay for services? Those people serving you at the restaurant... they aren't really GIVING you anything, are they? The lawn care person, the teacher, the housecleaner... you don't HAVE anything that you didn't before employing their services. What's more, you don't have anything they can take back, so why not just refuse to pay?

You might say "Yes, but I'm just getting a copy of the work... the artist didn't do anything more for me specifically." This is true, but by that nature, you should be paying a few thousand dollars or so for every CD you DO buy. Copying and timeshifting makes something that costs loads of money to make and market available at a much lower cost.

I'm not saying that price is required, just that the rights of distribution being held by the creator is a good thing, since similarily arduous tasks have the same protection through physical laws. And, yes, enforcement is a bitch when you get slapped with the lawsuit, and I'll fight on the side of anyone who's unfairly punished, but in many cases, the rules of the game were laid out well in advance.

As for your "movement", you forgot to mention the option of disagreeing and being the fuck in the way... I'd say that's a valid option, non?

(I really should just save one of these sometime-- slashdot-copyright-rant.txt-- so I don't have to keep typing it out all the time.)

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[stam66]

...WE NEED TO HANG (or fry) SOME POLITICIANS. That should be really obvious by now...

Reminds me of a quote I saw recently:

"The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'."

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Belial6]

You used the word "Steal" in place of "Copyright Infringement". You clearly do not understand the issue.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[kyojin the clown]

what I am going to do is start a movement to CORRECT our political culture hmmm. and from here, it looks like you are just gobbing off on an internet bulletin board. what a great way to change the world, good luck with it.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[The_Spud]

you forget one thing, live shows, artists make most of their money on live shows

Evidence for this ? I used to think this till I spoke to people I know working on tours. The cost of touring is massive and the artists tend not to make huge sums of money so do still need recording revenue. Also how do you propose that you come up with the large deposits needed to secure the venue bookings and down-payments for the sound and lighting crews etc if they don't get paid for recordings.

I dont think the economics of the music industry are as simple or black and white as regularly made out here.

I am interested in other peoples views on this.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[shotfeel]

And if the antelope greased himself with lard...

Haven't heard that one before. At first I was thinking you forgot this is a Family Friendly Forum.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[babyrat]

electrocute Audio pronunciation of "electrocute" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lktr-kyt)
tr.v. electrocuted, electrocuting, electrocutes

1. To kill with electricity: a worker who was electrocuted by a high-tension wire.
2. To execute (a condemned prisoner) by means of electricity.

So we should electrocute them to death to death and until they are no longer livng, and also dead?

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[nutrock69]

- Democracy would fix this just fine.

Which would be great if the USA was still a Democracy. As I recently saw in (oddly enough) a cartoon, we're no longer a system of "Checks and Balances", but rather the more one-sided system of "Checks and Mates". We haven't been a Democracy since the politicians decided to stop asking the masses what we wanted and started waiting for people/corporations with large piles of money to come tell them what the masses are supposed to want.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[jim_v2000]

There were no "content producers" for most of human history, yet people made music, works of art, and so on.

You forget that until recently, there was no way to mass produce media, other than the printing press. And you can be assured that when media was produced, it wasn't free. Paintings, sculptures, music, etc were never freely made. Artists had patrons who paid them for their works.

It will be different, neither better nor worse, if the world returns to a state where people are not paid for making digital recordings.


I'm not sure what time in history you are referring to where people were not paid for digital recordings. Maybe when they didn't have digital recordings...?

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Gigs]

The lawn care person, the teacher, the housecleaner... you don't HAVE anything that you didn't before employing their services

The teacher example seems to apply very well to the drivel that you posted, there is certainly nothing they could take back because you clearly took nothing from them!

The reason copyright protection exists is that creating content takes work

Not sure where you are from, so it may be different for youm, but in the US copyright protection exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" and has nothing to do with fair market price. There is no rights to make money from making something. When printing presses where invented scribes and monks lost their jobs. When cars where made buggie whip makers went under. And now that the internet and home theaters are here and poeple don't want to go to a theater and be stuck next to a talking couple that won't shutup while their feet are sticking to the floor. It you as a movie maker don't want to send your films directly to their homes... you can go do something else. If writting books ain't paying your bills find somethink that will. Do not complain to me and try to change my life to fit your desires.

If I don't pay the lawn guy, I'll have an overgrown lawn, if I don't pay the teacher I'll have ignorance, if I don't pay the housecleaner I'll have a dirty house. But if I care for my own lawn should I be forced to pay for the now unemployeed lawn worker? If I clean my house should I pay the housecleaner for the rights to do it the same way that he/she did it?

This is true, but by that nature, you should be paying a few thousand dollars or so for every CD you DO buy.

Why??? I have made many cd and dvds (yes with my own content) and it didn't cost me thousands of dollars. If its costing you that much to make a cd then I think you are doing something wrong.

Copying and timeshifting makes something that costs loads of money to make and market available at a much lower cost.

And here we reach the crux, You can't have it both way. Either it cost a lot and is hard to get or its easy to get and costs very little.

The RIAA and MPAA are trying to create an artifical scarcity in the market by associating a higher risk with the cheaper delivery. But their artifical scarcity is not good for the market because it mean that their goods still demand the same price while production cost are lower. The money that could be going to many new content providers in still only going to the limited few. And as such they are not promoting anything but are limiting the market instead.

since similarily arduous tasks have the same protection through physical laws

Except that physical laws do not apply here. What cost there is in copying the 1 and 0 is so spread out and marginalized as to be not existant and not is certainly no longer a burden on the producer. Yet that producers is still tring to profit from their old distribution model.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[kurzweilfreak]

Most people either download music, and/or see nothing wrong with it. The "extreme" that you mention is the norm.

Ahhh, groupthink.

There were no "content producers" for most of human history, yet people made music, works of art, and so on. It will be different, neither better nor worse, if the world returns to a state where people are not paid for making digital recordings.

Actually, I think I would have to nitpick that a bit. Do you mean human history overall or just music or art history in particular? If you look at the history of music, the earliest music was produced in the church, for the church by monks that did nothing but that. A little farther along, when you got into composers who actually composed for a living, many of them were commissioned either by the church or patrons. Some composers were even housed by their patrons who provided them with housing, food, clothes, basically everything they needed to live so that they could spend all their time composing instead of having to make a living and leaving little precious time left for making music.

Try being a patron of the arts and pay your little share if you enjoy it so much. The artists will appreciate it much more if they're getting a little slice than none at all. It really isn't your business if "the artists hardly get anything anyway!" That's between the artists and the company. If the artist has a problem with it, they'll deal with it. Of course, that doesn't apply to the indy artist who doesn't have the marketing and distributing power of a multi-billion dollar industry behind them, and they are the noted exception.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[kurzweilfreak]

Ok, so maybe I should've read a little further down before I posted. Mod me Redundant. :)

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Afrosheen]

Judging from the last few shows I went to, I really don't want to recreate the experience of a live show.

The heaving, standing room only crowd, the pot smoke wafting through the air, the unreasonable bouncers snatching people out at random. You can keep it.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Jaysyn]

Until Monsanto drags you ass into court for violating their IP.

Jaysyn

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[kurzweilfreak]

Hmmm, I don't quite agree. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." I don't know where you live, but not everyone likes to work for free all the time. it isn't about rights, it's about incentive. There would be a lot less progress if people didn't have any incentive to create those works in the first place, and a lot less if they have to do some grunt job just to stay alive when that time could be spent producing content instead.

Your analogies don't follow either. If you don't pay those workers, then you either you have no results of that service or you have to do the work yourself. So if you don't pay the musicians and artists, by your analogy you will either have no music or go about creating that art and music yourself, right?

If you're so annoyed by the other people in the theater, then do something about it: alert the theater managers, get them to do something about those people, or just patron another theater instead, and make your concerns vocal. Otherwise, nothing will be done and those theaters will continue to suck.

Why??? I have made many cd and dvds (yes with my own content) and it didn't cost me thousands of dollars. If its costing you that much to make a cd then I think you are doing something wrong.

I'd like to hear the content you've created and put on your CDs and DVDs, and I'm not talking about your home videos of you and your kids. You've created something that millions of people want to enjoy, using professional equipment (which by itself can easily cost a lot of money, hell, just your computer could be $1000 for a mid-line system), and distributed it across the country to millions of people, and all for under $1000?! Man, I wanna see that. Please post up some examples of your work. Better yet, post up the complete collection of your work. Not everyone wants to listen to nothing but amature-created music of slapped together pre-recorded loops in Garageband or a warez Sonar or Logic.

It you as a movie maker don't want to send your films directly to their homes... you can go do something else. If writting books ain't paying your bills find somethink that will. Do not complain to me and try to change my life to fit your desires.

Will you complain when you no longer have movies or books or music to enjoy? If those people are finding something else to pay the bills with, it means that they aren't producing the content that you think you have the right to consume for free. Do not take my work, which cost me time and money to produce, and fail to compensate me what I feel I'm owed for MY content and complain to me because it fits your desires.

And here we reach the crux, You can't have it both way. Either it cost a lot and is hard to get or its easy to get and costs very little.

Yes I can. It's my content, not yours. I can offer it for whatever I want. I may not sell much of it at a certain price, but that's my right to choose, not yours. The laws of supply and demand are consequences of a free market, not strict rules or moral obligations.

Except that physical laws do not apply here. What cost there is in copying the 1 and 0 is so spread out and marginalized as to be not existant and not is certainly no longer a burden on the producer. Yet that producers is still tring to profit from their old distribution model.

I believe here is the crux of your confusion. You equate producer to distributor. Cost of distribution may be lower, but cost of production does not go down because of that. Trying to interchange producer with distributor was consistant throughout your post, and it is just plain wrong.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[iminplaya]

And do the same for their lapdog politicians who give them this power.

And do the same for the lapdog voters who continue to give the same politicians their power.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[iminplaya]

There is nothing "in the middle" about about 75 years and beyond copyright. I believe you think that piracy is the issue, but it's not. It's about stopping self publishing. The content producers have a right to produce content. If somebody tries to take that away, people will get plenty vocal about it. They don't have an automatic right to profit. Their cliams to exclusive ownership are frivolous. Once an idea is expressed, nobody has a right to stop it from spreading. You gave up ownership by expressing it. You only own it exclusively if it stays inside your head. You can mkae your money by using your ideas in a performance on stage, in the studio, in the garage, in the hanger, in the office, in the factory, where ever. You can make money with your software by providing service. If you try to prevent me from using your content(of any kind) with ridiculous prices, monopolistic practices, and influence peddling, then you will never get any sympathy from me.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Lehk228]

you are going to the wrong shows, if you go to the huge outdoor or arena shows stuff like that will happen, I saw Nightwish play in NYC last august and the show was awesome, in the front it was standing room only crowds but towards the back if you wanted to sit down there were tables and they even served dinner if you wanted it. seriously great show. Go to the smaller and mid sized shows you will have a much better time than the huge shows where you are like 20 yards from the stage.

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[KiloByte]

Er, what? Doh! And I've previewed this message before posting...
I'm an idiot (but you're not authorized to quote this line).

Re:Fry the BSA members in the Electric Chair

[Gigs]

If you're so annoyed by the other people in the theater, then do something about it...Otherwise, nothing will be done and those theaters will continue to suck.

Why is it in my interests to make theaters better? There will always one thats too cold or too hot or the fact that I must leave the movie find a manager, complain and then have the manager return and disrupt things again to address the situation.

None of this is an issue in my own house! I never said that I wasn't willing to pay for content. The issue is that the MPAA and is not willing to provide that service because they will not be able to maintain their profits. And as such the market is finding a way to provide that service. Legality and morallity have no bearing on the situation. The demand exists it will be filled by someone and as is apparent the cost of providing said service is nil.

The cost of a music has dropped to, what, $5 a month for unlimited music or less then $.99 a song on walmart.com? And its continuing down. Last I checked there is still plenty of musicians out there performing and making a living. Why is it this low, because the distributers know that if they don't charge that low people will find other ways to get what they want.

As for distribution under $1000 I'm seein news reports all over about how many copies of Star Wars that are being downloaded from the internet. I don't see anyone fronting money to distrbute it.

Do not take my work, which cost me time and money to produce, and fail to compensate me what I feel I'm owed for MY content and complain to me because it fits your desires

Why is this so difficult? No one is saying you have to work for free. Just distribute the content in the form the consumer demands. People want music over the internet instantly and as Yahoo and ITunes proves they are willing to pay for it. Its still possible to get music for free, naspster didn't disappear it just evolved. But the hassle of using the other methods is no longer worth the cost. People want Movies and TV shows instantly over the internet as well. You see dwindling profits, I see market oppertunity.
You can feel what you are owed for your content all you want, the market will still decide what worth regardless of your feelings.

Yes I can. It's my content, not yours. I can offer it for whatever I want. I may not sell much of it at a certain price, but that's my right to choose, not yours.

And don't bitch when people arn't willing to pay your price. If you are not happy with the money you earn do something else or offer you content at a lower price so you sell more and then, and here is the point you are missing, make more money by getting more willing buyers. If you are still not making enough to live on then thats just too bad! Lots of movies flop, and lots of tv shows are canceled, why are you so special?

You equate producer to distributor

Theres a reason for that that you continually miss. The current producers are not getting the level of profits they once did because a new distribution method has been created and people like the new form of distribution, the issue is the the producers do not and are unwilling to use it. The problem is not consumers. Its the producers unwillingness to use the new distribution model because they will not earn as much... guess what Too Bad!

Shared responsibility

[arikb]

The question is, can they prove someone has the infringing file, if they only transmit PART of the file?

What bittorrent is about is being able to send very small but verifiably authentic parts of the file - but is that enough for them to prove the person has the infringing content?

My guess is that this is going to be made into law in the US in the near future - that if they get a single BitTorrent packet from you that belongs to an infringing file, it's enough to convict you of a crime and haul your behind in jail.

-- Arik

Re:Shared responsibility

[syntap]

Let's say you get four friends and you each photocopy a fifth of the new Harry Potter book when it comes out, then stand outside and each sell your part for a dollar, in effect letting one person collect a fifth from each of you and get the whole book for $5 instead of the $12 or whatever the retail price will be.

Is it your contention that by making only a part of a work available that you and your friends aren't infringing on a copyright? A "small but verifiably authentic" part of a file is content infringement just as much as a significant portion of a book would be.

Re:Shared responsibility

[Qzukk]

can they prove someone has the infringing file, if they only transmit PART of the file?

Yes, because the clients broadcast how much of the file they have.

If you don't think thats enough for a warrant, go down to the local police station and start shouting that you're carrying a pound of crack.

Re:Shared responsibility

[Neil]

If someone connects to your BT client using the protocol they can find out which pieces you are offering to your peers.

I don't see that it makes much odds anyway: if the file is copywrited work, and you don't have have permission to redistribute that work, then copying parts of it is just as much an infringment as copying the entire file.

Re:Shared responsibility

[daikokatana]

The question is, can they prove someone has the infringing file, if they only transmit PART of the file?

IANAL, but thinking like one would lead me to say yes.

Suppose the BSA/RIAA/MPAA/whoever succeeds in downloading 1 part of a total of 500 from your IP address. They could then automatically assume that a) you have that part on your disk, b) you were downloading that same file and c) you would end up with the same file they were downloading which you could share later on.

Even if you were to argue that, after downloading, you would disconnect and stop sharing, you would still have had the chance to upload 99% of the file in question. Don't mess with lawyers on these issues.

Re:Shared responsibility

[void dummy()]

Whats about the million ip packet, which are misrouted. Whats about dynamic ips? If i request something and disconnect, probably someone else get this package.

Re:Shared responsibility

[tankd0g]

They have yet to prove anything, it doesn't stop them from sueing, despite having never won a case, it's still effective against those few sites their "experts" pick out. It seems a site has to be nearly as well known as google before it pops up on their radar however, which suggests to me the guy looking is not especially skilled. I once got a letter from a lawyer for Oakley Sunglasses for deformation of their product from a 3 year old reply to a post that they printed out from the google archives. Oakley sunglasses are still polycarbonate garbage that break if you look at them wrong, by the way.

Re:Shared responsibility

[FidelCatsro]

Wouldnt that be like carying a pound of a component in crack ,They couldn't do anything till you have the whole thing put together .They would probably keep tabs on you though and wait till you have finished then rush in .

Re:Shared responsibility

[Cyram]

A pund of crack is still functional to a user. Part of a file isn't as functional to a user though. A better analogy might be that someone is trying to sue you for stealing their car when all you have is their hubcap.

Sure, the hubcap is stollen, but it's not the whole car.

Re:Shared responsibility

[leuk_he]

IANAL,

That is the problem. If you want do defend yourself you might want to hire a lawyer, who is more expensive than the settelement the bsa might offer to a typical file-sharer.

Re:Shared responsibility

[caluml]

I'm sure that you can find small enough strings in any file.
My old sig used to be: grep "meaning of life" /dev/urandom. (It never did find the answer though.)

Re:Shared responsibility

[Matt the Hat]

Of course that's copyright infringement, because you're not allowed to sell copyrighted material. But if you and however many other people each photocopied ONE page of the book and then GAVE it away, then there would be no copyright violation.

Re:Shared responsibility

[daikokatana]

If you want do defend yourself you might want to hire a lawyer, who is more expensive than the settelement (...)

That is not always true. My lawyer for example does not charge me anything if he lost his case. If he wins, he's paid by the other party.

Re:Shared responsibility

[mattgreen]

Nice slippery slope fear-mongering. Nothing in the article said anything about one BT packet being able to put you in jail. It is irrelevant to the issue.

The fact is you are *knowingly* abetting in illegal activities when you join a BitTorrent hosting copyrighted material. If part of the file is verifiably authentic, then it can be used to prove innocence or guilt. Are you actually trying to argue that a 'legitimate' BT packet (such as one belonging to a Linux ISO) might somehow also work in the context of an 'illegitimate' torrent? Even if there was the technical possibility (TCP connections pretty much rule out the possibility of rogue packets arriving, not to mention the BT protocol itself probably is sequenced), an investigation would show innocence - all further packets coming from that computer would *not* work in the torrent!

This isn't a question of semantics. Take responsibility for what you do. Do you really believe you can argue, "but your Honor, 0's and 1's aren't copyrighted! That is all I was handing out to other clients!" You'd get your ass laughed out of court. The only reason those arguments even show up around here is because they are what people want to hear.

Re:Shared responsibility

[hkmwbz]

"Yes, because the clients broadcast how much of the file they have."

But how does the BSA know that the file is actually warez in the first place? Maybe it's OpenOffice.org renamed to Microsoft Office? Wouldn't they have to download it to actually check that it is what they think it is? (And thereby upload to others themselves at the same time.)

Re:Shared responsibility

[bots]

I know, ill cancel my torrents at 99%! take that you control freaks!

Re:Shared responsibility

[Catbeller]

Once again, sharing is not selling, is not piracy. The various *AA's want the terminology confused, and no doubt will be successful in their BS campaign. Redefine the words, and opponents have no chance in an argument because the audience hears definitions in their own minds that were implanted by BS campaigns. It's a wonderful strategy. Oppose the war? You oppose the troops. Share a file? You steal/sell the file. Oppose Bush? You oppose America. Want reproduction and birth control education in schools at an early age? You're for little-kid promiscuity. Oppose inserting religion into the government? Anti-Christian, probably satanistic, certainly anti-American.

The analogy fails because you invoked the idea that I and my friends are selling parts of the book for a dollar. We are not selling anything; as a matter of fact, we pay for the bandwidth, tho that is irrelevant. What if we sat on the corner and let passers-by read our portions? Are we stealing then? The who **AA argument rests on the fallacy that just because it's electronic, the old traditions and laws should be junked. Frankly, they're using this to give themselves rights under law they always wanted, but never could get. They're using the newness of the technology to redefine copyright as ownership, which is NOT what copyright is about. Not to mention that the new copyrights are now eternal, which breaks the original deal the constitution's writers had in mind, which is: make cash for a bit, then the work goes into the public domain forever to enrich all. The deal was broken, so all bets are off. Change the copyright laws so that copyrights expire in twenty years after publication, and then we can talk. Right now, copyright=ownership for eternity. A free marketplace for ideas can't exist like this.

Re:Shared responsibility

[Qzukk]

Wouldn't they have to download it to actually check that it is what they think it is?

Yes, they would.

(And thereby upload to others themselves at the same time.)

Not if they set it up behind a firewall. Sure, it'll be slow as hell, but they only need to request enough of an uncompressed ISO to confirm that it is what it says it is (ie, if they know where on the ISO their installer is, they can grab that chunk of data and prove that the file being distributed contains their installer, which is, of course, copyrighted.)

Re:Shared responsibility

[KarmaOverDogma]

I think it's pretty damn clear that the grandparent post understands that it is, in principle, copyright (copywrong?) infringement in the context he mentioned. What I beleive he was getting at, and what you appear to be missing, is that what has remained in the realm of fair use in the past may soon become illegal, especially if you are not on the "approved" list of big business content providers:

Have some examples while your'e at it:
* making copies of a few sentences out of a book and using them in an article/on-line, with proper citation. say goodbye if the laws are tightened unless you have the blessing of the publishing industry (i.e. small-time help sites and student blogs better start watching themselves very carefully).
* listening to part of a song/movie on-line to see if you want to buy it. under more restrictive laws you could be at risk here. say goodbye unless you have the blessing of the **AA (i.e. small business in this arena can kiss their ass goodbye, and iTunes can be "pursuaded" to "adjust" their prices)
* you're a bookstore at a public university and you have an on-line system for purchasing books and a text review of them before you buy. under more restrictive copyright law, this could become illegal. OOPS! I'm sorry, this is already a problem in California under existing copyright law!

As you can see, the tighter the screws are tunred, the greater the potential (and actuality) for stifling of innovation, competition , and fair-use/freedom. The fight over Bit-torrent isn't just about copyright infringemt as you clearly point out above, but Content Distribution in almost every conceivebale aspect and the possible abuse of existing and future law.

Please remeber this the next time a Girl Scout Troop get's sued for singing "copyrighted" songs (like "happy birthday") around the campfire by ASCAP - and loses. Remember it the next time you use iTunes, too.

Maybe we all should buy more Girl Scout cookies and get more of our content from Project Guetenberg and our Public Libraries.

Re:Shared responsibility

[Insightfill]

If you don't think thats enough for a warrant, go down to the local police station and start shouting that you're carrying a pound of crack.

In such a case, there are existing "turkey laws" that apply. Selling a pound of powdered sugar and calling it cocaine carries the same penalty as selling real cocaine. Such laws only apply to drug sales, and for any other sale, the charge would actually be simple fraud.

Re:Shared responsibility

[syntap]

The analogy fails because you invoked the idea that I and my friends are selling parts of the book for a dollar. We are not selling anything; as a matter of fact, we pay for the bandwidth, tho that is irrelevant. What if we sat on the corner and let passers-by read our portions? Are we stealing then?

Your own analogy fails because the case of people walking by and reading it, or even checking out in a library, doesn't allow someone else sell it or give it away to others as my example and the reality of piracy via P2P demonstrate. When you feed out something on bitorrent, you are not swiveling a monitor over and saying "look at this bit stream"... you are delivering a digital package that can then be transmitted to others, which is very different than reading a book on the street and telling someone else what you may have remembered from the book.

But in any case I was reponding to a specific question from the original poster where he asked if a portion of identifiable work was infringement, and I gave an example of how it clearly is.

Re:Shared responsibility

[LanMan04]

Tell me how that makes any fucking sense at all.

Seriously, why would selling a pound of a totally benign and legal substance and saying it's drugs carry the same penalty as if you were selling drugs? I mean, WHY? It's not drugs. That's like firing a gun loaded with blanks at someone and being charged with murder or assault with a deadly weapon or something.

Hell, cops should run around selling huge quantities of fake drugs just to take the drugdealers' $ and use it to buy squadcars or something. It would sow tons of distrust amoungst dealers.

Re:Shared responsibility

[P0ldy]

IANAL, so please indulge me. In that instance of "simple fraud," if I were the customer, could I go to the police claiming I intended to buy a pound of crack and was defrauded with a pound of powdered sugar and not be incriminating myself because I was _never in possession_ of an illegal substance?

And, analogous, if this trackerless BT hypothetically should be flooded with fake files, but the filename is _STAR.W4RS.EP3_, am I liable for the "shared responsibility" of intending to download an assumed file protected by copyright when it turned out to be two hours of "sk00led" across my screen?

It goes to the heart of thought crimes as well.

Re:Shared responsibility

[loraksus]

This might be a tad bit cynical viewpoint, but I don't think so. Dallas PD did this for years before it was "stopped" in 2001 and hundreds were falsely convicted and are now serving long prison terms. Their "public defenders" were court appointed, without any budget to actually test and see whether the drugs weren't powdered sugar.

When some police (perhaps I should use "pigs") want to frame someone and send them to prison for a couple decades, they can simply use powdered sugar instead of having to steal something from the evidence locker. Of course, DPD (among other departments) did both, but if your policy is to pre-emptively lock up "bad" people (and lets be realistic, it isn't as if cops are immune to corruption, and prosecutors are happy to get a "tough on crime" stance in order to move up), this is an excellent method.
This practice isn't exclusive to Dallas pigs either. Dallas pigs were just really ballsy and got caught.

It might also have something to do with people getting pissed off and doing stupid shit like burning your apartment complex down after finding that you ripped them off. Not that most people would know about those laws, but still.

Re:Shared responsibility

[vertinox]

Selling a pound of powdered sugar and calling it cocaine carries the same penalty as selling real cocaine.

That's why you call it sugar and *wink* ;)

Re:Shared responsibility

[grammar fascist]

It's a wonderful strategy. Oppose the war? You oppose the troops. Share a file? You steal/sell the file. Oppose Bush? You oppose America. Want reproduction and birth control education in schools at an early age? You're for little-kid promiscuity. Oppose inserting religion into the government? Anti-Christian, probably satanistic, certainly anti-American.

Support the war? You're a bloodthirsty, brainless serf. Think "theft" applies well to people who steal guaranteed opportunity? You're part of a BS campaign. Support Bush? You support tyranny. Want kids in schools to learn about the advantages of abstinence, or think it ought to be the parents' job to educate them otherwise? You're old-school, stupid, don't know the facts, can't deal with realities of modern adolescence, etc. Think religious people's voices shouldn't be ignored just because they're religious? You're a theocratic nutcase.

Your side - or sides - isn't as holy as it makes itself out to be with regards to BS campaigns. FYI, I'm not necessarily opposite you on these issues, but I do think you do yourself and like-minded people a disservice with your utter myopia. Do yourself a favor and read the WSJ opinion pages once in a while. At very least, it'll cull out your ineffective arguments.

By the way, nice insertion of political/religious belief into an orthogonal discussion. Moderators, if you're fair, you'll mod him Offtopic if you do the same to me.

Re:Shared responsibility

[quietkey]

Candy is dandy, my friend.

Re:Shared responsibility

[ghettoimp]

"Your side - or sides - isn't as holy as it makes itself out to be with regards to BS campaigns."

1. You seem to imply that there are only two sides. This false dichotomy is certainly reinforced by the media, what with their talk of "conservatives vs. liberals", "republicans vs. democrats", and "right vs. left". It seems clear to me that the political issues of today are far too complex to dichotomize in this manner.

2. You seem to imply that because "both sides" are spinning issues, the practice is somehow legitimiate. I would disagree and claim that such tactics are not in the public interest. In any legitimate public debate, the goal should be to come to an agreement that everyone can live with. When "both" sides are bent on "winning" rather than listening to each other and really considering all viewpoints, it breeds resentment and leads to bad solutions.

3. If anything, your post reinforces grandparent's point by showing that this "spinning" of issues has becoming such a prominent tactic in our political landscape.

In this particular case, it seems clear that some agreement must be eventually be reached between the media industries and the general public.

Unfortunately, the sides are not even; millions (if not billions) are spent by the copyright holders, lobby our congressmen, adding anti-piracy messages to trailers in theaters, filing lawsuits to scare off would-be file sharers, and generally painting the opposition -- people who see how screwed our current system is, and how through laws like the DMCA it is getting worse -- as pirates and criminals.

With this imbalance, we lose the ability to rationally deal with the issue.

But of course, that's the whole point of spin.

Re:Copyright?

[real_smiff]

exactly, although (whatever they say) they must be gutted that they won't have single points to shut down many users with.

Arrrgh!

[ale3ns]

Shiver me timbers!We can just bury the torrent files and make a map!BSA's having the Davies now! Arrrgh!

Trackerless BitTorrent will never work

[timecop]

See, the problem is, BitTorrent has been originally created to distribute large files efficiently.

There's been plenty of legal use, I've downloaded slackware ISO's, funny spoofs of warez groups from Sony's www.welcometothescene.com website, and I download updates to my legally owned copy of X-Plane using BitTorrent.

On those downloads, I've never got less than 200-300k/sec, and I had no problem connecting to the official, legal, and stable tracker.

This whole trackerless bullshit (new BT beta as well as "new" distributed tracking in Azureus, was created for ONE purpose only - to distribute ILLEGAL content.

Legal trackers don't go down. How many times did you try to download Slackware 10.1 ISOs and the tracker was down? Never. But if you go look at your favorite torrent pirate site, how many torrents on there are hosted off some dweeb's DSL line at home? Probably 50% or more. What happens when BSA/MPAA/RIAA/*AA comes in and takes away his PC? Tracker goes down, oh noes, piracy cannot continue.

So this "solution" to a non-existent problem will simply promote piracy using BitTorrent, and sway it from the original goal of distributing large amounts of data.

But the real problem starts is when everyone (read: my ISP, their upstream provider, etc) will be told by BSA/MPAA/etc that "BitTorrent in any shape or form is illegal". They will shape down my downloads, and i'll be downloading slackware 11.0 ISOs at 5k/sec. THAT would bother me, and piss me off, espeecially because I couldn't give two shits about pirated american TV shows, and a few dweebs that do, would be ruining a good software/data distribution method for ALL of us.

Re:Trackerless BitTorrent will never work

[Alioth]

This whole trackerless bullshit (new BT beta as well as "new" distributed tracking in Azureus, was created for ONE purpose only - to distribute ILLEGAL content.

No, that's not true. There are plenty of reasons for having a trackerless torrent system - it allows people who don't have access to a server that can provide a tracker (such as bloggers, or those with GeoCities sites) to host large files without waxing their bandwidth limits. Bloggers can now easily publish their home videos, for example. There are substantial non-infringing uses for trackerless torrents.

Re:Trackerless BitTorrent will never work

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

How many times has the Tracker for Fedora gone down because of a /. post saying "Here's a Fedore Torrent?" Every single time. /. takes out Trackers when they give torrent links.

What about power outages taking out the tracker?

Re:Trackerless BitTorrent will never work

[jascat]

I've seen numerous trackers down for various different OSS projects. Trackers go down just like DNS, web and email servers. This is a redundancy solution should a tracker become unavailable. Don't condemn a feature as something only used for piracy when it can be used in plenty of other situations.

Most of the warez, music, etc, that I have seen use only a couple of non-US hosted trackers. Hate to break it to you, but the BSA/MPAA/RIAA/US Government have no jurisdiction over them.

Re:Trackerless BitTorrent will never work

[ashridah]

[i]Legal trackers don't go down. How many times did you try to download Slackware 10.1 ISOs and the tracker was down?[/i]

Is that a trick question?

Re:Trackerless BitTorrent will never work

[springbox]

If you think the intentions of creating a distributed tracker are purely for piracy then I think you've missed the point. It was to make transfering files via BitTorrent more accessable to a wider audience who don't have access to a dedicated tracker. Of course it will be abused. The current version of BitTorrent is abused already.

Re:Trackerless BitTorrent will never work

[Vulturo]

But the real problem starts is when everyone will be told by BSA/MPAA/etc that "BitTorrent in any shape or form is illegal".

-- what have you been smoking? That will never happen.

Re:Trackerless BitTorrent will never work

[mrsbrisby]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Right now: if the tracker _or_ the seeds go down then torrent doesn't work. The changes remove a redundant step and do NOT add any additional privacy.

The new .torrent files contain simply discovery about the seeds instead of about a tracker. The new clients share tracking information.

This means the MPAA actually has it easier: they don't have to "take" the tracker, they connect to a torrent like any other downloader and collect all of the addresses of all of the downloaders (as they would be operating as a tracker as well).

And for the record, I would never be caught dead downloading Slackware ISOs as I don't have time to waste. Ubuntu's tracker (on the other hand) went down two days ago.

Re:Trackerless BitTorrent will never work

[sallgeud]

Such examples of sites publishing content legally, all while using BitTorrent:

http://bt.etree.org/ -- live records of bands who permit

http://www.legaltorrents.com/

http://www.commonbits.org/

Looks like there's even an older /. article about these:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/08/032821 4

Re:Trackerless BitTorrent will never work

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

More specifically, the MPAA or BSA might claim that something is illegal, but that does not make it so. (Just like Nintendo claiming how emulation is "illegal") These are not government bodies, they are corporations, and what they're doing is called propaganda.

If they can get enough people to believe something, it effectively is so. (Just look at their success at confusing the issue of copyright VS copy protection)

Re:Trackerless BitTorrent will never work

[eheldreth]

Error: Unexpected character. Found "ALL of us." when expecting ")"

Megnet links

[EdZ]

Why not just take magnet links to the next level: Allow anyone with the torrent to send it to anyone with the magnet link. that way the only way to curb the spread is to shut down every site that posts a line of text, or hope that a search function doesn't get integrated.

Re:Megnet links

[Danathar]

I agree..Magnet links are the way to go. But..just on my cursory research many people don't understand manget URI's or how they are to be used. Every time I make the suggestion for sites to list magnet links instead of links to torrent files (or in addition to) the responses make it clear that people are clueless as to what magnet links are....in addition to the new distributed hash table networks that have trackerless torrents.

Magnet links will work eventually, heck once they start getting published you'll be able to get them off of google (I've managed lately to get into torrents from torrent files that were cached in google and then was able to join a torrent with no tracker but was using the distributed hash network).

BSA Reacts to 'New' BitTorrent

[gowen]

Today the released a statement saying : Why should it bother us? We manufacture classic motorcycles.

I2P

[sbrown123]

I2P can do bittorrents. Unlike magnetic links, the original file is hidden behind a series of tunnels. Theres some encryption in there too for good measure. Check it out at www.i2p.net.

Re:Copyright?

[bmongar]

IF an agent of a copyright holder (BSA) makes the work avaliable for public download is it illegal to download it? I mean by knowingly making it avaliable on a public network they are giving public permission to copy it.

Brad

So, in real time we hash the payload to a

[Anonymous Coward]

particular IP with that IP for disassembly at the other end. Whammo, proof of DMCA violation on the part of anyone who comes after your ass.

DMCA violation trumps copyright violation any day.

Re:So, in real time we hash the payload to a

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be touting this stupid shit, it's simply untrue. DMCA doesn't protect infringers any more than trying to hide your IP.

The BSA, Microsoft and the definition of Extortion

[NZheretic]

The BSA, Microsoft and the definition of Extortion

Re:A question about incomplete files

[daikokatana]

Read my reply to another post right here: I don't think you could defend yourself with your argument.

Two dilemmas

[KrunZ]

But what if you and your 500,000 friends stand in line and each hold a letter and each will show it to people for $12/500,000 per letter. Are you infringing on the copyright?

What if you and your 10,000 friends each stand a in line and each of you are holding a paper citing a line from the book. Are each of you just using your citation rights?

Re:Two dilemmas

[Threni]

> But what if you and your 500,000 friends stand in line and each hold a letter
> and each will show it to people for $12/500,000 per letter. Are you infringing > on the copyright?

Sounds like conspiracy to me. This is not an offence I'd wish to get charged with.

Re:Two dilemmas

[!the!bad!fish!]

I haven't even got 4 friends, you insensitive clod.

Re:Two dilemmas

[Nytewynd]

I only have 2 friends, and one doesn't know the alphabet... You must be quite the party animal to have 500,000 friends.

Re:Two dilemmas

[drgonzo59]

I brought up this argument in the discussion about Bush signing a law that would jail someone distributing even a single pre-release. My suggestion was that if someone would want to distribute pre-releases but not distribute any one single file, then they should distribute parts of it. Obviously the original distributor will have to distribute the whole file to bootstrap the process, but then the file is divided into smaller pieces and nobody makes available to the public the whole file, just a segment of it. The smallest segment is 1 bit and the largest is the whole file without 1 bit. I was wondering if there is segment size in between that is still feasable and yet not large enough for anyone to say that you are sharing such and such file and are guilty.

Re:Two dilemmas

[1WingedAngel]

> But what if you and your 500,000 friends stand in
> line and each hold a letter and each will show it
> to people for $12/500,000 per letter. Are you
> infringing on the copyright?


Wouldn't that be you and 25 friends? I mean, I missed the part where there are 500,000 letters in the english language

Re:Two dilemmas

[Criffer]

It's not that clear cut - every single word of the new Harry Potter book has in fact been published before, in a book called the Dictonary. Perhaps you've read it?

I'm not hosting copyrighted content. I'm sending out individual bits. Ones and Zeroes, just like George Boole. Its your interpretation of those bits as content which is infringing, not my sharing of them.

Re:Two dilemmas

[aquabat]

But what if you and your 500,000 friends stand in line and each hold a letter and each will show it to people for $12/500,000 per letter. Are you infringing on the copyright?

What if you and your 10,000 friends each stand a in line and each of you are holding a paper citing a line from the book. >Are each of you just using your citation rights?

This is equivalent to (weakly) encrypting the book before distributing it, and here's why:

In order to verify the authenticity of the parts, the receiver must have the authentication algorithm. Therefore, the sender must send the data (i.e. 500,000 chicks, each with a letter on her t-shirt) as well as the key (i.e. the order in which the t-shirts must be removed to be read).

Obviously, the guy that thought this scheme up and implemented it is guilty as sin; he had the intent. However, I would not consider the chicks to be guilty, even if each one had her own copy of the key, as long as she was unaware of what the key unlocked.

If the chicks are a general transport mechanism, then they are just couriers, and could very well be used for legitimate purposes. It is only when they are aware that what they are carrying is part of an illegal act that they assume responsibility for that act.

I guess my thesis here is that there has to be intent to commit a crime for there to be guilt, in this situation.

Re:Two dilemmas

[cfpresley]

mod parent up for teh funnay

Re:Two dilemmas

[pixelpusher220]

really? you're friends with both Cheney AND Bush? ;-)

Re:Two dilemmas

[TGK]

The problem with your argument is that you're relying on a ficticious bunch of altruistic distributors who don't want anything in return for their bandwidth/services.

In reality, the distributors want something - they want the copyrighted work. Now there is the origional altruistic individual, who donates his bandwitdth or whatever to distribute the file. But everyone else has to download the file in order to distribute it. Now some of those people might have their own legal copies of a particular work, but we can safely assume they don't have that copy for - say - prerelease films.

So if the *AA sees you uploading portions of a file, X, for which there is no publicly available licence, they know you've necessarily downloded those portions or are the origional distributor.

Either on is actionable. The protocol you're using is one desinged to download the entire file -- not just a pre-agreed upon fragment. As such, you can likely be prosecuted for your possession of that file.

Moreover, because the sharing networks have each indivual hosting a large number of file fragments, it's harder to claim Fair Use for partial work distribution.

In short - these programs encourage the agrigation of the data by the host. As such, it's not legaly unreasonable to investigate further based on the evidance given by a single fragment.

Analogy -- you go out a buy a large amount of cold medicine. Now, you could be shopping for a bunch of friends who all have the cold. Or you could be running a meth lab. While the cops can't get a warrant for your arrest based on that, they can get a warrant to search your house.

Re:Two dilemmas

[willpall]

Yes. If you and your friends arrange yourselves in such an order as to make the letters spell out the Harry Potter book, then yes, you're infringing the copyright. I doubt there'd be much fuss over it, but you can't just say that you were only holding the letter 'b', and it was happenstance that all these others were standing next to you with the appropriate letters.

Re:Two dilemmas

[Junior J. Junior III]

It depends what you do with that fragment.

If you're using a fragment of a document to cite for purposes of criticism or review, no infraction.

If you're using a fragment in conjunction with thousands of others to re-assemble the work in its totality and distribute it without authorization, that's a copyright infraction.

It's really pretty cut and dried.

Re:Two dilemmas

[MoralHazard]

The law is smarter than you. It's already thought of this, centuries before the Internet. It's called "conspiracy". Even if what each individual does is innocent, or at least not as serious of a crime as the combination of their actions, you can prosecute them all together as a conspiracy to commit the larger act. Conspiracy has other neat uses, too, that help fill in gaps like this in criminal laws.

Of course, for that to work you'd have to be talking about criminal copyright violation. I don't remember offhand what the standard for that is, but it's probably too high for this kind of thing.

But that doesn't matter, either, because tort law provides means to sue a group of people for collective actions of that group, in the same fashion as conspiracy laws apply to criminal law. Although how one would go about filing a lawsuit against 500,000 people, is beyond me.

Re:Two dilemmas

[Maxo-Texas]

That just dodges the point.

Okay...all 500,000 friends of mine are hosting original essays which has a quote in the middle of the essay from the book.

Such as:

I think that the 5,317th sentence, which ends the paragraph and chapter in the new Harry Potter book, "No Professor smith, I don't want to see your dirty pictures of Hermione!" is central to the books theme.

I think that the 5,317th sentence, which ends the paragraph and chapter in the new Harry Potter book, "No Professor smith, I don't want to see your dirty pictures of Hermione!" with "dirty" in italics is central to the book's theme.

I think that the 5,318th sentence, which starts the paragraph and starts a new chapter named "Harry has a Dream"in the new Harry Potter book, "Harry was in front of class and Voldemort and all his female classmates were laughing at Harry because he could not keep his robes tied and he had on no underwear." is central to the book's theme.

These are legitimate mini-articles taken separately.

If there is a legal limit, people will find it and exploit it. It is almost like obscenity. It's very hard to define.

The same thing could be used for audio "song reviews", video "movie reviews" and so on.

Re:Two dilemmas

[drgonzo59]

Well I was thinking that the distributors can always be rewarded by increasing thier download speed ratio or something similar (which as you say will also tend to create aggregation of large amounts of files on few hosts). Here is a little more detail explanation of what I was thinking

A 1Gig file F is split into 200 5mb file segements (chunks) f0,f2,...,f199. The original distributor D0 will advertize that it has a part (or parts) of the file F. Say it has file segments f0 and f199 for example. If there is demand everone will start downloading those segments. Those who downloaded it also become distributors but advertize different chunks, like one has f0 and other has f199 (determined at random, or by looking at some global availability and demand), so that uniformly eventually all the segments are present in the network. Then D0 will advertize other chunks and those will spread out through the network.

Eventually each distributor Di will have a whole file F in some private directory but will continue to advertize just some parts of it (but never all of them in a short time frame).

If the file is in high demand then even some nodes that do not actively want to download file F will be rewarded (by more bandwith or more search visibility) to host some chunks of it. Or maybe that could be a requirement, but nobody would want be any bit liable, so it probably won't work.

*AA will see that their file is available, they might even figure out that at a particular time a certain 200 different hosts (distributors) will together have their file. They can go for all those individuals. Or *AA with enough manpower can focus on a certain IP address and "watch" it with the help of the ISP. When they download all the segements of file F they get "visited" by the police with a warrant to seize their computer.

If they don't have the record that the person has eventually downloaded all 200 f0...f199 files, but that they only have some 5Mb chunk of file F, it might be harder for them to sue that person and demand $3000 in damages for only .5% of the content.

Obviously you are ultimately right, *AA will get suspicious and if they want they can get a search warrant and if one downloads enought parts of illegal to distribute files they will probably have just enough fully downloaded files on their 300Gb hard drive to land them in jail or have to sell their house to pay back the damages.

Re:Copyright?

[xmodem_and_rommon]

not necessarily. If I write a book and leave the manuscript on a street corner and you find it, does that give you the right to copy it? (i know, bad analogy)

but by offering it for download, they would be inducing you to commit a crime. There is a word for this: Entrapment

Blaiming Technology is fruitless.

[jellomizer]

Sure you can blame BitTorrent for piracy problems you can probably even go and make it illegal to use in most countries. But it wont stop the piracy. They will make an other program that does it differently. Technology moves a lot faster then the legal system. If they really want to cut down on piracy they should figure out why people pirate materials.

Things like Price. $100 and up is a lot of money for the average home user. Money that can be used for car payments, paying Rent/Mortgage. And paying $100 on a product you don't even know you really want or will use for only a couple of months can be a big waist. $25-$85 is the normal sweet spot for what people are willing to pay for most software.

Things like convenience. Going to the store and finding the product that you need now. Or going online and filling out all your personal information and getting placed on the stupid mailing lists and then paying for the product. Or go and get a pirated version with no questions asked.

Finally no real good reason to buy. When you buy the programs at the store you no longer get useful documentations like the good old day you just get the media and sales stuff on other programs the company makes or install directions in 1000 languages. I wish every program came with a manual the explains all the features in it, and a real paper manual not a PDF or html documentation where it is more difficult to flip to some page and find a cool feature.

Stop blaiming people who make the tools that make our lives easier the companies to think about making our lives easer,

Re:Blaiming Technology is fruitless.

[Overzeetop]

Yes, the cost of software is generally out of line with the return for a home user. Business users gain far more for the use of software. Unfortunately, there's no way to distinguish the usage. Worse yet, as a business user, I'm loath to drop a large sum of money on a program unless I know it will work, and will provide a return. 30 day free trials? Sorry, there are times when I get busy and can't even try a program within 30 days...sometimes 180 days wouldn't be long enough to find the time to use it. Some individual packages of software for by business cost more than 4 months salary for the person using it - and another 1 month of salary every year for updates. And I still have to pay to train them to use it.

Heck, a full suite of licenses for a single user might cost as much as their annual salary. Add two to four month of total training time to get them to learn the programs, and I'm looking at a huge cost before I even bill a single penny.

You hit the nail on the head with the documentation. Some of the "popular" programs don't come with anything more than the online help file, prettied up on glossy paper. If I'm goingt o pay $500 (or $5,000) for a software package, I'd damned well better get a three volume set detailing the software - installation file locations, registry keys, system variables, every command, a full tutorial, and examples.

And, yes, I download packages off of usenet. I've had some sit for over a year before I got a chance to try them out and learn them. And, yes, I've bought the retail version once I decided it was in my interest. And, I'm sad to admit, I've "waited" to buy certain programs until they showed a positive return. As soon as I could bill more than the software was worth, I bought it. I like to justify it as saying I'm taking advantage of an unintended 0% extended term financing, with a money back guarantee.

sought the assistance of???

[sd.fhasldff]

> BSA has traditionally sought the assistance of those hosting the actual pirated files. So that's what they're calling it these days. I guess "suing the ass off" has lost its appeal.

Fear?

[otter42]

Why should they be so scared of it? Is it made to attack them? Is the stated goal of BitTorrent to attack incessently, to give no quarter to the BSA?

Or are they just self-rightious overreacters that think that everything technological that doesn't come from them is a threat to their god-ordained, constitutionally protected business model?

Re:Copyright?

[NewStarRising]

I may be wrong, but isn't it the UPLOADER (distributer) that is commiting the offence?
If someone who owns the copyright to a material is allowing it to be distributed, then there is no offence.

Re:The BSA, Microsoft and the definition of Extort

[Alamar3]

Unfortunately, "extortion" is not treated by its exact definition in a Court of Law. If it were, taxation would also be illegal (after all, money is being demanded from you with the threat of imprisonment if you fail to comply).

So at the moment, certain forms of "extortion" are legal. Not *Just*, mind, only legal. Until a paradigm shift occurs in the mindset of the general population ("hey, it can't be one law for some people and another for everyone else - that's unjust!", "can a legal system that upholds contradictory practices ever be just?", etc.) this sort of argument will continue to carry little weight.

After all, if it's happening to lots of people, it's got to be legal, right?

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I write a book and leave the manuscript on a street corner and you find it, does that give you the right to copy it? (i know, bad analogy)

Very bad analogy. It is not generally expected that anyone finding a manuscript on a street corner will attempt to publish it. It is generally accepted that someone finding a link to download a file they want will click on the link.

Correct analogy: if you give me a copy of your book, I have the right to accept the gift, and you can't turn round and accuse me of theft.

Trackers won't get hosed - Will Swarms Balkanise ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with Piracy, it just alieviates the scaling botlleneck that was the tracker.

A more interesting question might be will this lead to other problems as swarms split and fragment. You may end up joining a tiny swarm cut off from the main swarm and thus get no bandwidth.

Or stuck in a swarm with no seeds.

Bram is very Clever though and I believe he has thought of this - can someone explain it to me though?

Bittorrent is designed to scale well and to ease the load on the Seed.
The problem was that the tracker did not scale well, even though it is a small file, it gets communicated with reguarly and just doesn't scale, popular files take down trackers.

So trackerless trackers simply allow better scaling and ease publication - so I would say that this innovation is more for legitimate files running on indiviual sites rather than Advert funded Warez trackers.

The myth of Internet anonimity has allowed an awful lot of fools to be caught. Naughty Bittorent swappers only have security through numbers.

How about underground fanzines which publish Movies as UUENCODED ASCII which is then typed in or OCR'ed - these could be published as poetry and protected as Free Speech. ;-)

Rodi - an alternative to BitTorrent?

[TheHidden]

Found this on Planet Peer: http://board.planetpeer.de/index.php/topic,829.0.h tml Rodi is a new developmental P2P network that is currently in testing. What makes Rodi unique? Many features, such as IP-spoofing for anonymity and packet-mimicking, so the P2P traffic can appear as one of many different internet traffic patterns - such as HTTP, FTP, etc - that are less likely to get blocked or throttled by an ISP's packet shaping. Unlike traditional proxied (very slow) anonymous networks (Freenet, Mute, Ants, Winny, etc) the use of IP spoofing can allow high-speed full-bandwidth downloads while keeping the uploader's true IP address hidden from the downloader.

Re:Rodi - an alternative to BitTorrent?

[Professor_UNIX]

Unlike traditional proxied (very slow) anonymous networks (Freenet, Mute, Ants, Winny, etc) the use of IP spoofing can allow high-speed full-bandwidth downloads while keeping the uploader's true IP address hidden from the downloader.

If your ISP still allows IP address spoofing they need to be hit with a clue-stick.

Too Simple

[Morosoph]

What you're not accounting for is those torrents that haven't been posted because the legitimate distributer of material had nowhere to put up a tracker. Certainly, one can always pay money for a permanent host and find somewhere, but someone with an account that is free with their broadband connection is that bit less likely to publish. With this change, when fully seeded, they can turn off their home machine.

So I suspect that you're wrong. By making publishing easier still, more will be able to put stuff up on their site that they couldn't before. True, most people lacking in resources will in this context be pirates, so the proportion of illegal use will go up, but that is a side-effect of enabling your average Joe to publish where they couldn't before, meaning that the quantity of legitimate use will also go up.

Re:Copyright?

[xmodem_and_rommon]

you're right, i should have put a bit more thought into that analogy.

But yours isn't much better (or possibly its incomplete). You can accept the gift, but you can't (legally) turn around and engage in wholesale copying of my copyrighted work unless i give you permisison.

It is good news

[Orion Blastar's Psyc]

for those who don't want to be tracked and want privacy. The BSA is a bunch of whiners anyway. Piracy helps promote the software, and if people like it, they can buy a real copy.

Re:Copyright?

[leonmergen]

I may be wrong, but isn't it the UPLOADER (distributer) that is commiting the offence?

Then they should just connect to a tracker and see what pieces other hosts have made available, and record their ip's...

Taking Down Torrent Sites Doesn't Work

[UMhydrogen]

I find it funny that all the anti-piracy agencies don't realize that taking down a website doesn't work. Suing/taking down torrent trackers or torrent hosting websites does nothing. When you take down 1 site, 10 pop up in its place. Look at suprnova, that went down and already over 20 sites have popped up that host as many torrents as suprnova did.

The anti-piracy people should look to solve their problem a different way. Why are people pirating things? Maybe it's because of the price. People certainly don't get a thrill out of piracy in the same way that people do other illegal things. Stop making moves $10 to go to, stop making someone pay $1/song, stop over-charging and blaming increasing charges on piracy when that is a complete lie. It's time to attack the problem elsewhere - not in those sharing the files.

Re:Taking Down Torrent Sites Doesn't Work

[RevengeOfPoopJuggler]

I'm beginning to think that these people don't even really care about piracy, they just blow smoke up their shareholders' asses to keep them happy. It doesn't make any logical sense for them to think they can stop piracy. You can't ever stop stuff like that. Just like the war on drugs. You can never ever ever ever ever win the war on drugs. So why do we keep pumping billions of dollars into fighting a losing battle? The same reason the BSA will keep fighting their unwinnable war.

Re:Taking Down Torrent Sites Doesn't Work

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stop making moves $10 to go to, stop making someone pay $1/song, stop over-charging and blaming increasing charges on piracy when that is a complete lie."

I remember when the excuse was that paying $18 for an album or $3 for a single was too much and unfair, but if only, (IF ONLY!) some benevolent content distribution god were to swoop down from the Heavens and offer music for a reasonable price like, say, $1 a song, it would grind piracy to a halt because everyone downloading illegal songs is doing it in protest of outrageous prices.

I also remember 20 years ago when we would make bootleg copies of G.I. Joe cartoons (2 20 minute episodes to a tape if I remember correctly) from the VHS rental place because official copies started at $58, roughly the price nowdays of DVD season set (and in some cases, 2 seasons and up.)

$20 too much to pay if you want to see a movie in the theatre? Then wait 6 months and the DVD will be available in Walmart for that much and on Amazon for less. VHS tapes used to start with a street date of over $100 so Blockbuster and others could have a safe rental window before the general public could purchase the movie at an affordable price but DVD (which is easier to pirate. No fancy TV capture cards or miles of coaxial to worry about, just software you can get from download.com) shattered that creating a $20 street price the day it's released.

No matter what the cost is, someone is going to come along and say that's too much, I won't pay! Someone else is going to say why would I pay that when I could get it for free. A third someone else is going to say that price is fair for what I get, I have no problem paying.

I haven't made any elaborate spreadsheets of movie prices throughout the years, but but over-all, we're talking about a 60 percent decrease in product price (lets not get into the math of accumulating season sets back then... $58 for 2 episodes times 10 or 20...) and that is without factoring in inflation. How much is a 1985 $20 worth in 2005?

So I guess with all that said I agree with you that "increasing charges" is a lie, just not in the way you seem to feel.

Re:Taking Down Torrent Sites Doesn't Work

[toddestan]

I remember when the excuse was that paying $18 for an album or $3 for a single was too much and unfair, but if only, (IF ONLY!) some benevolent content distribution god were to swoop down from the Heavens and offer music for a reasonable price like, say, $1 a song, it would grind piracy to a halt because everyone downloading illegal songs is doing it in protest of outrageous prices.

While I wouldn't call it outrageous, I would say that a DRM encumbered file encoded at a low, crappy bitrate is not worth $1.

Trackerless BT is your friend

[Suchetha]

i have the largest collection of up to date linux iso's in my country. its a hobby as well as a job for me. so when The Linux Mirror Project tracker went down a few days ago, it took down the best way i had of downloading ISOs. so yeah, i would say tracker-less BT has a legitimate use, and it is an important one.

Suchetha

Re:Trackerless BT is your friend

[bani]

Now you know why the BSA wants bittorrent shut down so badly. opensource is threat to their bottom line, and bittorrent is an excellent method for opensource distribution.

kill bittorrent = hurt opensource = major win for the BSA.

The Alphabet Song?

[KrunZ]

The market is already floating with illegal copies of the Alphabet Song, but nobody has been jailed. I guess the Roman's IP-laywers died a couple of milleniums ago.

Try to wrap...

[Kjella]

Wouldn't that be you and 25 friends? I mean, I missed the part where there are 500,000 letters in the english language

...your head around this: A text may have 500000 letters, but only 26 unique letters. What those 500000 people are implicitly selling, and that 26 could not, is the ordering of those letters into a book.

Kjella

When in doubt, fight copyright with patents!

[vkapadia]

Someone should file a patent for "a method of identifying a Bittorrent user by means of their IP address".

Re:When in doubt, fight copyright with patents!

[jackstraw2323]

If a band of pirates got together and filed this patent, couldn't they then sue the RIAA or BSA or MPAA for patent infringement when someone uses this technique to go after pirates?

Re:When in doubt, fight copyright with patents!

[kelnos]

Except for that whole pesky "prior art" thing...

Re:BSA?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Windows programmer! Learn how to use strcmp() correctly.

Re:BSA?!?

[chrish]

Mod: -1, Hungarian notation and ugly brace style.

They have to distribute it to find the guilty...

[hkmwbz]

But to bust someone, they will have to figure out if what they think is infringing material is indeed infringing material. To do so, they will have to download it. And by downloading it, they also share it with others, distributing their own work.

I don't know if a court of law would buy that line of arguments, but that's the way I see it.

Re:Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

Entrapment is reserved for criminal cases... ...the word you're looking for is "Maintaining an Attractive Nusance".

BT definatly contributes to warez

[Anonymous Coward]

If they really want to cut down on piracy they should figure out why people pirate materials.

No, you can't blame BT for piracy but you can blam eit for the boom in the amount of piracy.

First let me qualify myself by saying I have been involved in the Warez scene for about 10 years. I remember when Quake 2 was the zero day release and when the size of the acceptable release was raised.

Now, back in "the day" the warez scene was a community. You needed to know somebody or contribute to be involved. Leeching was shunned upon. You need to have skills (I personally hacked server to make zero day FTP's). You couldn't just download to your hearts content.

When P2P came into existence this started to change, you no longer needed to involved, you could go to what amounts to a store and pick out any song and or piece of software to pirate.

As the pipes for fatter and people caught on, even the P2P community started to go down hill. It was flooded with crap, bad files, and incorrect releases.

Along comes BT. It provides the redundancy check to make sure you are getting the correct info, it FORCES you to share with anybody else who has the torrent and it scales in such a way that big file downloads are no longer a huge drain on bandwidth for the provider.

BT has facilitated the world of warez a lot. Without it you would still need to be on IRC getting zero day FTPs and provided a service to the community. With BT any person can download a torrent and if they are on a fat pipe, have a new movie, album, or expensive piece of software in a short amount of time.

Blocks

[DickBreath]

Suppose you downloaded a bunch of Blocks.
Each block is, say, 128 KB.
Each block contains bits that are indistinguishable from random noise.
Each block has a number, which is its hash. Block numbers are much longer than in the example below.
Each block may have come from a different IP address, indeed, even through a different network protocol (Gnutella, OpenNap, Mute, Http, etc.)

You obtain a list of reassembly instructions through another network and reassemble the blocks as follows. (Each block you downloaded is labeled with a B, and the content blocks of the reassembled result are labeled with a C.)
C1 = B224 xor B166
C2 = B287 xor B948
C3 = B569 xor B982
C4 = ...
C5 = ...
etc....

Blocks C1, C2, C3, etc. taken together form a copyright infringement.

Which IP address sent you the infringing work? Each block may have come from a different address? Each block is not infringing content.

Which block is infringing? The first block of the infringing reassembled file C1, was formed from B224 and B166. So was B224 infringing? Or was B166 infringing?

B224, when combined with a different block in the network results in a portion of The Declaration of Independence. B166 when combined with yet some other block from the network results in a portion of The Bible.

Maybe the infringer is who gave you the list of reassembly instructions that told you which blocks to obtain and how to reassemble them? But this information is not directly a copyright infringement. In fact, it may be a fairly short text file.

Note that I did use double the download bandwidth to obtain my copyright infringing material. But for that cost, I raised a whole bunch of questions about who to blame. And I did not suffer the horrible performance of Freenet. (I have not tried Mute.)

(This is an idea I read somewhere.)

Such a hypothetical Blocks p2p system could potentially be designed with the swarming advantages of BitTorrent. Each block could be available from multiple sources -- even multiple network protocols.

Re:Blocks

[DickBreath]

Store both pieces on your storage device in some cryptographically-defined pattern, only reassembling the data on the fly. Now your storage device does not contain a copy that is provably a copy.

Hey, Anonymous.

The argument could be made that what you have is an inefficient filesystem that uses twice as many sectors per sector of actual content; plus the reconstruction list, which is part of the filesystem. What you have is an inefficient obfuscating filesystem. Store any file on it, such as an mp3, and you are trying to argue that it does not infringe copyright -- yet merely opening the file, presumably lets you read the reconstructed original data. From the user space POV, you have infringing files.

Or maybe I misunderstand you?

Re:Blocks

[DickBreath]

Again...
C1 = B224 xor B166


C1 is the first block of copyright infringing material. C201 is a block from The Bible. C301 is a block from The Declaration of Independence.

Now suppose B224 was random noise. Then B166 was derrived by...
B166 = C1 xor B224

But still...
C201 = B166 xor B998
C301 = B224 xor B999

Since we already stated that B224 was random noise, then B999 was created by...
B999 = C301 xor B999

Now B166 was "generated" from random noise and copyright infringement, but it still appears random. Block B998 could be generated as... B998 = B166 xor C201

So it is still the case that both B224 and B166 both seem random, yet combine to form an infringing block. But B224 must be okay, because B224 and B999 is part of Declaration of Independence. And B166 and B998 is part of The Bible.

So which block B224 or B166 is infringing? (I described the origin of both B224 and B166, but you don't know the origin of them.)

I described the origin of B224 as "random". But it may be just some other block I know is out there on the network. In fact, it is best for me to re-use as many blocks as possible when creating new "recipies" for how to reassemble an infringing work.

Someone else mentioned that the blame is shifted to the "recipie" for how to put the blocks together into an infringing file. But if the blocks are large enough, like 128 KB, or 512 KB, or even 1 MB, then it doesn't take a very long recipie. The recipies become short enough to resemble the DeCSS fiasco, with recipies being formed into "songs", "poems", "stories", etc.

Re:Who is sharing...

[v1]

They don't have to do a random search actualy. As part of the BT protocol, when a peer joins a network they receive a peer list - the IP addresses of some of the peers in the swarm. (normally not all the peers, to prevent trackers from getting swamped by large swarms)

The new peer then attempts to make a connection with some or all of the peers in the list it received. Once communication is established between the new peer and one of the peers, both exchange a list of which pieces of the torrent they already posess. Anyone with 100% of the pieces is a "seed", and is a good candidate for being the original poster. This I know from having read one of the earlier drafts of the BT protocol.

Looking at current clients such as Bits on Wheels, I also am assuming that new information has been added to the exchange, and that peers also swap information such as how much total data they have upstreamed and downstreamed since they connected into the swarm. In a swarm with several seeds, this information might be used to determine which seed is the original seed, assuming they will have a total of 0 bytes downstreamed and most likely one of the largest byte totals upstreamed.

It's sort of like the mosquito problem... spray a lake with oil and you wipe out the mosquitoes in an area for awhile. Take away the lake, and now all you can do is swat them one by one... far less effective, and I think that's what the new BT is aiming for.

I also wonder where the line is drawn in copyright. I can take a sentence from a book and that's most likely not violating copyright. I can copy 5 notes from a song and that's not violating copyright. But if I take two chapters from a book, or a dozen notes from a song, THAT can violate copyright. Where do they draw the line for digital works? And what if a torrent's "piece size" is smaler than this amount? Technically you couldn't violate copyright by sending out five bytes of data, because that would be a common string that could occur in any number of things. Maybe it's arguing semantics, but that's what it always comes down to for the lawyers, because they have to draw the line in stone somewhere and it's always possible to be just on the other side of that line.

Re:They have to distribute it to find the guilty..

[cduffy]

You think they don't have the resources to figure out that they can set "--max_upload_rate 0"?

File Parts

[nurb432]

Is there an upper limit on the 'paraphrasing' allowances in current copyright law?

Lets say you download 100%, but only share 50% of the pieces back out..

Is that enough to be called infringing? 75%? 25%?

Just an idea.

Re:File Parts

[friedmud]

It gets even more interesting when you consider that you probably "share" less than 1% to any individual peer.

Is "talking about" a "piece" of a book considered copyright infringement?

I was thinking a while ago that Azureus should be modified so that less than 5% of your outgoing traffic will go to the same peer. It would be tough to argue that you have given away "copies" of the song/program to anyone....

Friedmud

Re:File Parts

[benhaha]

On the other hand, it would be simple to argue that you were conspiring to commit infringement.

Re:File Parts

[benhaha]

Yeah, except you aren't really paraphrasing it, because you are not taking a portion which is meaningful on its own and restating it in another way. You are purposefully conspiring with others to commit infringement.

Who's showing the book?

[Pac]

Let us tone down the 500,000 number to 257 persons. Each person holds a different 8 bits byte. The 257th person has lists with the names of the other 256. Those lists vary in length and each person's name is repeated many times.

When the list-holder calls a person name, that person shouts his/her byte.

Who's showing a book that can be represented, in a particular code, by say 1,000,000 8 bits bytes? Each person has only one byte. The list holder has only a list of persons.

Matters get more complicated if you add more byte holders, repeating the bytes and alternating the names on the lists.

Re:Copyright?

[robertjw]

They're probably just joining a tracker, and see which ip addresses try to contact their host...

But can the prosecute if I don't have the whole file? Is it copyright violation if I have a piece of a binary that happens to match theirs? Is that enough proof that someone has violated the copyright? Sounds tricky to me.

OT; BSA cannon on CA Antigues Road Show

[baomike]

This is a "Boy Scouts of America machine gun".
Looks like a starting cannon to me (yacht races).
Prolly has "BSA" on it, maybe Birmingham Small Arms?

winny sucked.

[Anonymous Coward]

winny's creator was arrested.

After failing to crack Winny's encrypted communications used in its file sharing feature, the Kyoto Police switched to a different method, namely tracking users via Winny's integrated forum feature. Unlike its file sharing feature, the forum feature of Winny provided anonymity for users who accessed message threads, but not for creators of threads. Users accessing threads were able to determine the IP address of the originator of the thread.
The Kyoto Police first looked for a thread where its originator was posting the file names of copyrighted material he was sharing, and recorded his IP address. They then configured their firewall to only allow connections to them from the thread owner's IP address. Finally, they confirmed that they could indeed download the copyrighted file from the user who stated (on his thread) that he was sharing it.

Re:Who is sharing...

[mindstrm]

When you use bittorrent, you aren't quoting or using a small piece.. you are knowingly and complicity participating in mass distribution of the work. The fact that you personally may have only transferred a few blocks is irrelevant.

The technical details are not as important as the end result. You WERE helping people copy that new starwars rip, and it's not your place to do so.

Re:It says alot about Slashdot...

[Cryofan]

I wrote this:

All the CEOs who fund the BSA should be tried for treason, and if convicted, placed in the electric chair, and electrocuted to death. And do the same for their lapdog politicians who give them this power.


And in response, you wrote this:

It says alot about Slashdot...that the parent is actually modded up as insightful for making comments about murdering people over copyright laws.

Got a problem with reading comprehension, or are you are just another programmed little sheeple?

Sharing is Sharing, Stealing is Stealing

[freality]

We may disagree where the boundary between stealing and sharing is, but I think when it comes to major media, that cost many hundreds of people many years to create, you can share it on a small scale with a couple of people, but, for example, posting a torrent of Return of the Sith the day it hits movie theaters, stealing is, as Yoda would say.

If you don't like the price of a movie, don't pay it, but also.. don't steal it. There's people who make that stuff for their living. They spend lots of time and energy on it in the expectation that many people will be interested in buying a copy for personal use. It doesn't matter if you think that's a valid profession, or morally correct. it's their business. Their life. And if they wouldn't sell you the copy if they knew you were going to turn around and give it away for free to everyone you could, on a massive basis, on the world-wide internet, that means that if you do, you're lying and stealing and violating their trust.

Sharing can't happen without trust.

Now, if you give it to a friend, and that friend gives it to a friend, etc. etc. and it remains low-level, then it doesn't matter what they think. It's none of their business what you do with it as long as it's basically private to you and your friends and family.

Now maybe you disagree with the particular place I've drawn that line. You may see the line at a slightly different place in the sand. Or think it's blurry. Or gray, or not so gray. That's a whole other argument.

But I think we would all benefit us all to identify a community-determined middle area where we tread softly, and broad side areas where we firmly plant our feet. I think we should all preserve and protect the practice of small-scale sharing of everything in the world, even in the face of pressure against this by The Man. I also think we should all preserve and protect the expectation of honesty in a market transaction, even in the face of painful desire for the latest and greatest popular piece of culture.

Re:Sharing is Sharing, Stealing is Stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the price of a movie, don't pay it, but also.. don't steal it. There's people who make that stuff for their living. They spend lots of time and energy on it in the expectation that many people will be interested in buying a copy for personal use. It doesn't matter if you think that's a valid profession, or morally correct. it's their business. Their life. And if they wouldn't sell you the copy if they knew you were going to turn around and give it away for free to everyone you could, on a massive basis, on the world-wide internet, that means that if you do, you're lying and stealing and violating their trust.

So, then government has to assume the role of preserving these people's profession, no matter what technology has done to make their busniess model obsolete? Perhaps these content DISTRIBUTION companies should investigate seriously how the Internet can be used to distribute their goods. If "Sith" was available electronically, many of us who watched it illegally in the past 24 hours would have paid. Was downloading it and watching it wrong? Yes, probably, but I have little remorse. The fact is, content creation has not ever been a lucrative business. Content must be sold, performed, or distrbibuted to make money from it. If I pick up a guitar, and strum out a tune so good that angels would weep to hear it, I have not made any money by doing so. DaVinci, paiting the Mona Lisa did not suddenly become rich as he put down his brush, the canvas had to be sold. My point is, the business you are defending is the distribution busness, the record labels, TV netowrks and syndicators, and movie distribution houses. I think that the "rampant" piracy of thier client's creations is due to thier shortsided, hidebound, outdated business model. They might be able to make even more money by making the content available to the public in a timely, convenient manner. Perhaps you should turn in your car, because it is putting the buggywhip manufaturers out of business.

Frankly, my biggest beef with movies is people. I can't stand to go to a movie house, especially a crowded one, because people behave like animals. Why I should rearrange my day to fit the showtime, buy a $8 ticket, then get gouged at the concession so that I can have something to drink, only to have to put up with someone's single-digit-aged child being disruptive and kicking my seat all trough a PG-13 or R rated feature is beyond me. And this is the experience they want to protect by not releasing the content on any other channel.

I can watch movies at home, on my wide-screen HD set in 5.1 sound and be quite stisfied with the experience.

Re:Sharing is Sharing, Stealing is Stealing

[freality]

"My point is, the business you are defending is the distribution busness, the record labels, TV netowrks and syndicators, and movie distribution houses."

I'm not defending their business wholesale, I'm defending their expectation to come to a fair market. I don't give a h00t about their business model. If they have a broken business model, a fair market is the best hope of replacing it with a better alternative. You are basically arguing that "piracy" isn't stealing... because they didn't make what they're selling? So if I walk into a Wal-Mart and take something out without paying, it's not stealing because Wal-Mart didn't make it? hahahahahahahahahah.

You know, you're right. I don't like the visceral experience of going to a Wal-Mart to shop. Therefore, I'm going to go to the shipping docks, where all the actual goods are (that Wal-Mart bought from the actual producers), and take them directly from there, without even asking the original producers what they think about that.

And the biggest problem in this analogy is that the Wal-Mart shopping experience isn't enjoyable... not me stealing goods from the shipping docks, you know, like the mob does.

Awesome.

It's really not surprising that this kind of action puts the media distribution companies on the defensive. "We're gonna steal your stuff until you give it to us for free. And you should thank us for our words of wisdom."

Awesome, Awesome, Awesome.

All of their strategic stupidity pales in comparison to an argument like this. This kind of behaviour manages to put huge, grotesque art exploitation business in the right. All of us get to watch a war over expensive protected movies instead of giving our time and attention to making better, legit alternatives. w00t.

BTW, if you could even begin to churn through all the free movies, music and texts available on the internet, your argument would have a lot more weight. But since we live in an age of amazing free media, it sounds like a fat man complaining he hasn't had enough to eat.

Re:And therein lies the problem...interpretation.

[Cryofan]

I wrote:

All the CEOs who fund the BSA should be tried for treason, and if convicted, placed in the electric chair, and electrocuted to death. And do the same for their lapdog politicians who give them this power.



and in response, you wrote:


Would it not be reasonable to interpret one who threatens U.S. politicians with execution an enemy of the U.S.?

Oooh, aint that "freedom of speech" thing a real bitch when you're naught but a programmed sheeple?

Wrong, obviously

[Julian Morrison]

Other people have pointed up the other holes in your theories, so I'll point up something different, namely: you mistakenly assume that only big is legal. Sure the latest Ubuntu liveCD torrent won't shut down from an overloaded tracker. But what about JoeSmithLinux or other hypothetical small distro? Suppose one such is surprisingly good and gets posted to Slashdot. A thundering herd of geeks crams down this guy's DSL and knocks him off the net. Distributed tracker to the rescue!

DT really is just an extension of the BT idea of spreading the load. BT allows downloads to scale, DT allows trackers to scale. It's better for "piracy" simply because it's better for everything. Just as BT was versus HTTP.

s/Return/Revenge/

[freality]

hahah.. was the Jedi who returned.

Re:The BSA, Microsoft and the definition of Extort

[PMuse]

Extortion n. 1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.

There's a lot of room in the word "undue". For instance, "I'll sue you if you don't give me back my iPod" isn't exactly extortion. Nor is the policeman who says "Put your hostage or I will shoot you" committing extortion. I'd even hazard to say that the theatre that sells popcorn for $7 isn't committing extortion, but YMMV.

The point? Dictionary definitions are seldom clear enough to be a law all by themselves. (Nor are most laws clear enough to make good dictionary definitions. ;-) That's what makes it fun.)

I smell fear

[springMute]

What are these guys smoking? The concept of the trackerless torrents wasn't created because of the need for protection of tracker servers, but for the ease of distribution... this is not about making it harder to identify trackers. The whole torrent system isn't about circumventing identification or about being completelly anonymous, and the BT author has mentioned this several times.

Re:They have to distribute it to find the guilty..

[shotfeel]

Well, we are talking the BSA here...

They may have resouces, but "clue" aint one of them.

Re:I2P

[sbrown123]

Now, with the TCP transport in place, I2P is essentially thread-limited (2 threads per connection) to about 250-300 nodes.

Quick solution: don't use threaded connections. Use NIO instead. I will look in to this.

Luring people to I2P now is not useful for development

I2P is an open source project. "Luring" people is essential for its growth. If I2P core team did not want outside input they should close the project until a future time. This is unlikely their belief since they are posting bounties and requesting peer review to reach version 1.

But for now, don't join it yet, and don't announce it here.

Sorry. Already joined. I even download the source and starting to fiddle. I just can't help myself. As for official posting, you can do a slashdot search where I2P has been mentioned several times in the past. Thats how I found out about it to begin with.

Re:It says alot about Slashdot...

[wo1verin3]

It says a lot that you take a comment like that seriously.

[slightly OT] Setting up a trackerless BT

[robslimo]

I realize this a little late and a little off-topic, but I'm hoping to get some help analyzing my problem.

Yesterday I attempted to set up/seed a torrent using the trackerless BT beta and it didn't work for me.

System/setup:
-Windows XP, SP2, firewall enabled.
-ports 6881 thru 6889 opened up for TCP
-real routable IP address (no NAT)
-created torrent, checked DHT box, ran the bt client (pointing to the localhost's IP in the torrent)
-at another computer on the same subnet, I installed the beta bt client, opened ports 6881-6889 and clicked on the torrent file and...

nada. waited a long time but the 2nd client stayed at 0%.

Bram's site is real slim on details on using the beta client in DHT mode, was wondering if anyone can spot something stupid that I'm doing wrong.

-TIA

Re:[slightly OT] Setting up a trackerless BT

[Badaro]

Try port 6969, that's the one traditional trackers use (AFAIK the "Trackerless" mode runs a lightweight tracker on the client).

[]s Badaro

Re:[slightly OT] Setting up a trackerless BT

[nuggetboy]

Don't you need those ports open for UDP as well, or was that just Azureus' implementation?

Re:[slightly OT] Setting up a trackerless BT

[robslimo]

Thanks for the suggestion, but no dice. Just for grins, I opened those ports for UDP also. Still no dice.

Guess it's time for me to read up on the BT protocol and fire up Ethereal.

I am serious

[Cryofan]

You need to understand something. THe United States of America kills people every day. Not just in war, although we have killed tens of thousands of innocents lately in Iraq. But also our policies kill people. Like for example, our lack of a national healthcare system kills 18000 Americans every year because they lack basic healthcare. THat is why Americans have shorter life expectancies that people in NW Europe or Canada or AUstralia, where they have universal healthcare. Our politicians would rather that the healthcare industry have high profits, than we Americans live longer. I consider this a form of murder. That is MY opinion.

And we kill people in the electric chair after convicting them in our courts. Sometimes we do this because we claim they have killed other people (although sometimes we are wrong about that).

Also we execute people for passing certain information to certain other people (See Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, for example).

So, I am suggesting that we subject some of our leaders (political and corporate) to the actions of our court systems. There is nothing illegal about saying that we should this. I have the legal right to call for CEOs and politicians to be tried for treason in a court of law, and if convicted, sentenced with the ultimate punishment, as others have been sentenced before in our courts of law.

THis is just politics. That's all. That red-state blue state crap you see on the boob tube is not really politics--that is something else....

Re:I am serious

[syates21]

...our lack of a national healthcare system kills 18000 Americans every year because they lack basic healthcare

Riiiightt. Also, we murder thousands of people a year with our callous disregard for the laws of physics by choosing to let people cruise around at insane speeds higher than 15-20 MPH. You're willing to just sacrifice all those "innocents" just so you can drive your Prius with the peace symbol and rainbow stickers to your socialized medicine assembly line service station at 65MPH. What blatant disregard for human life. :)

How about a torrent system where a file is...

[Assmasher]

...never actually hosted in its entirety and instead hosts portions of files or intermittent streams of the files. Sort of de-centralizing the file itself.

I wonder how prosecution would work for someone who only had every 3rd byte of a music file which would only be assembled with other byte streams from other torrent locations. Nobody actually hosts the file itself, or even a recognizeable facsimile of the file.

Re:How about a torrent system where a file is...

[nuggetboy]

So, you would never have the whole torrent? Why download then? If you mean that your client only uploads a portion of the torrent while you still have the whole thing insulated from what you are offiering, there is still the valid assumption that you have the entire work. I doubt it would pass muster.

Re:How about a torrent system where a file is...

[rcastro0]

You are thinking about Freenet. Not well implemented or popular today, but certainly a file sharers last ditch against interference from the powers-that-be.

Wikipedia says the following about Freenet: The system has no central servers, is peer-to-peer, and is not subject to the control of any one individual or organization. Even the designers of Freenet do not have any control over the overall system. The system is designed so that information stored in the system is encrypted and replicated across a large number of continuously-changing anonymized computers around the world. It is extremely difficult for an attacker to find out which participants are hosting a given file, since the contents of each file are encrypted, and can also be broken into sections that are distributed over many different computers.

Re:How about a torrent system where a file is...

[Assmasher]

I'm abstracting the concept of having the file locally for your usage and having the file available for torrenting.

Currently, torrentors are serving a very identifable and complete file which makes it easy for people like the BSA (MPAA/RIAA, add favorite acronym...) to identify via network traffic analysis tools who is serving what file to whom.

If a trackerless torrent system allowed a torrent client/user to download only non-sequential portions of a file, ergo requiring a torrent from (n) differnet torrent suppliers to get the remainder of the data, the BSA/MPAA/RIAA would not be able to use network traffic analysis to ID people. They'd have to write a torrent client that sought out a torrent for downloading (potentially putting them in violation of their own copyrighting.) In otherwords, they'd have to use licensed torrent code (whose license could preclude types of usage) and become a torrent client in order to discern who is serving what file, and end recipients of conglomerated torrents would be difficult to identify as the sequence downloads could be chronologically out of order.

Hell, I may have to really look into this. LOL.

Re:How about a torrent system where a file is...

[Assmasher]

Not really. This is more advanced in a legal sense than Freenet. Freenet is still dealing with an easy to track entity. Encryption aside, the file is present on a distribution node in its entirety. People pull linear successions of data from a distribution node, which makes the network traffic analysis identification possible for BSA/MPAA/RIAA.

What I propose is that the file itself is decentralized in that one distribution site doesn't actuall expose (a)a whole file and most importantly for anonymity reasons (b)linear sequences of the file.

Each distribution node would, using a 7 node example, send every 7th byte to a client.

Take that a step further and use an algorithmic non-linear sequence of bytes where a series of distribution nodes can identify themselves as supplying a particular portion of data.

The significance of doing this is that network traffic analysis will not show that "The IP at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx is serving a zipped/tar'd/arc'd/et cetera file which appears to be our xxx.mp3", a districution network like this would need a bigger 'seeding' upload to get started for a particular file (so that you could introduce enough distribution nodes with enough variation as to make traffic analysis basically useless.)

Anyhow, I need to think about this some...

Re:How about a torrent system where a file is...

[BP9]

It seems that first order its pretty clear: whoever had to have a complete copy of the material in hand is the one who perpretated the violation. Everyone else is a 'common carrier' (morally).

Where it gets fuzzy for me morally is once someone has the downloaded the full file and becomes a seed it seems like they should then be as liable as the first guy -- but they likely have no intent to be a distributor (aside from just using BT) so perhaps not. If they started a new torrent with the file as a seed its pretty clear.

Morally, being on the receiving end of stolen goods is also pretty shakey obviously, but that's a different debate.

Re:How about a torrent system where a file is...

[Assmasher]

I should have mentioned this in the context of "morality aside regarding file sharing of copyrighted material" ;).

Re:Who is sharing...

[stupid_is]

i.e. it's the intent that shafts you. If you're distributing a 5 character string from a Harry Potter book, you're unlikely to be part of a large network of people doing so with the intent of people being able to delve into the pile and reassemble the book.

They did it correctly.

[WindBourne]

If this is not Boyscouts, then download all, else download nothing. After all, if it is boy scouts, you do do not wish to down it.

Remember, in windows land, that is a feature, not a bug.

Its unusable too.

[IcEMaN252]

I realize that this is not always the case, but with some file formats if you only get say 1/5 of the file then it is utterly unusable. Are you really infringing if what you upload is unusable?

Re:Copyright?

[emilv]

Then they should just connect to a tracker and see what pieces other hosts have made available, and record their ip's...

Oh, you've missunderood it; the other hosts are only QUOTING the original material ;)

LOLOL

[ninji]

So they intend to blame the people hosting the .torrents? They going to stop 80,000 MIRC torrent distribution channels, especially when they start using encrypted filenames?

Re:The BSA, Microsoft and the definition of Extort

[Alamar3]

There's a lot of room in the word "undue". For instance, "I'll sue you if you don't give me back my iPod" isn't exactly extortion. Nor is the policeman who says "Put your hostage or I will shoot you" committing extortion. I'd even hazard to say that the theatre that sells popcorn for $7 isn't committing extortion, but YMMV.

Well, no, none of those examples are extortion, but not for the reason you state. In the first two, the target has clearly committed a crime; in the latter, the key word is "sells" - the theatre's not forcing anyone to buy their popcorn.

(I'd also question whether suing someone for theft would ever be a reasonable course of action...)

But I fear we're drifting off-topic.

So what you really need

[Snaller]

is a client which will insert random blocks of noise, which can be discareded at the other end - sure it would take longer, but you have deniability? ;)

Re:The BSA, Microsoft and the definition of Extort

[PMuse]

Oh, we're definitely straying from the topic. But why not?

The ipod example* shows extracting something by threat. The second example shows extracting something by use of force (assuming the cop eventually shoots the guy). The third example shows overcharing.

The possibilities are: (1) these fit the definition and are extortion; (2) these fit the definition, but aren't extortion because they're not "undue" under their special circumstances; (3) these fit the definition, but aren't extortion because of the various exceptions you mention; (4) ??.

Since we agree these aren't extortion, (1) is false. My (2) sort of gives the definition more credit than it maybe deserves by supposing that the poor little word "undue" can stand for all the special circumstances. Actually, I think that (3) is the most true. Which means that the definition itself would make a poor law since it leaves out a lot of important information about exceptions.

[*I was thinking of an ipod that I had loaned to the guy but that he later refused to return.]

Re:And therein lies the problem...interpretation.

[Cryofan]

Obviously, you took my comment out of the context of the thread, you slimy lickspittle. Anyone with an open mind and a 80+ IQ can see that I advocate trying these traitors in a court of law. That is the whole point of it.

Why not just mix and match all my words in all my posts till you get what you want?

Re:Copyright?

[Spark00]

perhaps I'm an idiot (and that is MORE than likely) but is chasing IPs an accurate way to find p2p & .torrent users? The reason I ask is something that happened this week. Our DSL modem was not working properly and while waiting for the techs to fix it we used our neighbor's wifi (unsecured, bless their innocent little hearts) to surf the web. Thereby doing whatever we were doing, on an IP acquired in someone else's name.

So why wouldn't that be a good defense? If I can prove that my wifi is open most of the time, couldn't i simply say that yes someone on my network may have acquired that IP and while doing so pirated and whatnot, but you can't actually prove that I did the pirating.

It's the same reason speed cameras have failed in this jurisdiction, you can prove the car was speeding, but you can't prove who was driving it, ergo you can't prove WHO was breaking the law.

I'm not a laywer, but if i was on a jury, that'd convince me not to convict.

Just a thought.

Recipe copyright? (was Re:Blocks)

[Mille Mots]

One aspect that doesn't seem to have been addressed is the copyright protection afforded the 'recipe' for reassembling the Bxxx blocks. Some disjointed thoughts follow:

Once the recipe is published, does it not acquire the same protections as the copyrighted works that the recipe is facilitating the infringement of? I wonder how that would play into the legal aspects of the 'War on (some) Pirates.' Having a book with instructions on building a nuclear weapon is legal, as is publishing said book, right?

I suppose the recipes themselves could be reproduced from other recipes, allowing for the construction of a recursive system. Although, I'm not sure how useful that would be.

If an application were developed to encode the recipes in 'plain text' I wonder if any infringement could be proved, absent posession of the re-assembled infringing material (presumably the reason for having this whole Blocks system in the first place).

In Civilized countries AND the USA huh?

[Scootesti]

I really like how USA is separated from the realm of 'civilized countries', even on a sub-conscious level.

BS, eh?

[FuroTheRed]

Sure it's an alliance, just like they say.

But we all know what the "BS" really stands for.

Won't somebody think of the childeren!?!

[Scootesti]

Well here's how I look at it. I do download music from time to time, I don't keep large repositories of music on my system. And if I download some songs of an album and enjoy more that one of them, I'll usually go out and buy the album, if only to support the artists.

Personally I wouldn't want to come in to work one day and have my boss tell me, "Sorry Scott, we can't pay you for your work today. Somebody up and stole our sales department, so we can't sell anything today, and won't make any money"

Not that this would technically be possible, but that's what musicians and the like often face.

Now having said that, I'm all for P2P networks, especially for up-and-coming musicians, it's a forum for them to try and get their music out there, in an age radio-stations that won't play anything that isn't from a major label. Many of them couldn't give a rat's ass about the money they 'could' be making, they're just happy to share their art. And sometimes down the road, someone will remember having heard a certain artist somewhere, and sign him to a big label.

Hopefully some sence will come from this inane babble of mine, I just finished a test in my training program, so my brain is broken...

Re:Won't somebody think of the childeren!?!

[Mr2001]

Personally I wouldn't want to come in to work one day and have my boss tell me, "Sorry Scott, we can't pay you for your work today. Somebody up and stole our sales department, so we can't sell anything today, and won't make any money"

Not that this would technically be possible, but that's what musicians and the like often face.

Oh, do they? Really?

"Sorry, Britney, we can't pay you for your work today. Somebody up and stole all the master tapes, so we can't sell any more CDs."

I don't think so. Try an analogy like this:

"Sorry, Comcast, we can't pay you for internet service anymore. Somebody set up a free WiFi zone that covers this whole neighborhood, so we don't need to pay you for access."

Nothing is stolen. The copyright holder still has everything he ever had, but now there's a better way for his customers to get it from someone else.

In every other business, that's accepted as a fact of life. If you sell mousetraps for $1 each, and someone else starts selling identical mousetraps for less, you better come up with a way to make your product more attractive (or lower your price) if you want to stay in business. Whining that your competitors are using your blueprints won't get you very far in the long run.

The problem with music, movies, and other piratable content is that the producers insist on treating them as goods, when they are in fact providing a service.

Consider programming: anyone can duplicate CD-ROMs and manuals, put them in boxes, and sell them. Hell, anyone can compile a program from source code. The valuable part of programming is knowing what code to write, just like the valuable part of making music is the particular way you play your instrument/sing/write songs, not duplicating the recordings once they're made. You can replace CDs with tapes, DVD audio, or MP3 files without affecting the value of the service that the musicians provided in writing and performing the songs in the first place. In any other business, piracy wouldn't be a problem, because the people with talent would already have been paid when they actually used it.

Re:Won't somebody think of the childeren!?!

[oirtemed]

Not that this would technically be possible, but that's what musicians and the like often face. Ummm. No it is not. No one is stopping them from making money. In fact, they are making money just fine. CD sales are up. You can't legitimately claim lost money because people have obtained copies of your work. Go read that Nirvan producers manifesto. Bands don't make much from CDs. The noncontentproducers: labels, publishers rake in the dough. A musician is better off giving away their music for free and then performing for money.

Re:They have to distribute it to find the guilty..

[quietkey]

So if they have the right to distribute it (as, say, the copyright holder), have they not then LEGALLY made it available to BE copied? It is no longer a copyright violation if the copyright holder puts it there for you to copy.

This does change a lot! But for better or worse?

[ivand67]

How can anyone say this doesn't change things? When DHT makes it big and is implemented all over the place, the MPAA will not be able to cause the shut down of sites like LokiTorrent, BTEFnet, TVTorrents, ShunTV, or any other tracker of movies/TV. That's a big difference and it's positive. But the negative side is they may just begin suing not only uploaders, but anyone who seeds a whole copy of the file or maybe even anyone who downloads. And if you download movies and TV through BitTorrent, and on this web site, I bet more than 70% do, that's not very nice. But even then, you have to believe the MPAA already had plans to sue American downloaders, whether trackerless BitTorrent was gonna happen or not. But now they can't shut down your favorite place for TV shows. People could just share the torrents on Limewire, Ares or whatever P2P network, and then launch their BitTorrent client.

Re:Copyright?

[leonmergen]

perhaps I'm an idiot (and that is MORE than likely) but is chasing IPs an accurate way to find p2p & .torrent users? The reason I ask is something that happened this week. Our DSL modem was not working properly and while waiting for the techs to fix it we used our neighbor's wifi (unsecured, bless their innocent little hearts) to surf the web. Thereby doing whatever we were doing, on an IP acquired in someone else's name.

I don't know how it is done in the USA, but over here (.nl), you are fully responsible for what happends with your connection... so if you have an insecure connection, and other people are doing stuff with it, you are responsible for the things they do... it is your connection.

Re:Copyright?

[millennial]

The mods are on CRACK today. Redundant? Only if the person has read it before. Obviously, this dumbass thinks copyright violation is legal - not a criminal case? bullshit.

Depends

[nurb432]

If you are sharing mp3/divX/etc, they are not an exact copy of the orginal.

They are a lesser qualty copy. with each part having 'meaning'. Ever listen to a audio clip? Or a part of a movie? They all have meaning on their own..

Re:Depends

[benhaha]

Talking about "Is bittorrent like paraphrasing".

The point is that you are not saying "Listen to this clip, it's really poignant" or "This guy as a really good point, have a loook", or even "Whoah! look at this stunt!".

You are saying: "Here is part of the file. If you can find the other parts, you will have the whole thing!".

If you look at it in a bad light and squint, it looks like paraphrasing. But it is totally different from a human perspective, because the intent of the downloader is to obtain a complete copy (whether of lower quality or not), and the intent of the uploader is to assist them in doing so.