Slashdot Mirror
BitTorrent User Guilty Of Piracy
DIY News writes "A Hong Kong man has been convicted of movie internet piracy in what is believed to be the first case involving BitTorrent file-sharing software. The man was found guilty of copyright infringement for distributing three Hollywood blockbusters using BitTorrent."
Were those films part of the evidence or his punishment?
He had been charged in April for uploading three Hollywood blockbusters to the net - Daredevil, Red Planet and Miss Congeniality.
There is no accounting for taste...
If I am getting caught, it damned well better be for "Good" movies...
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
All actions like these do is force development of next gen p2p like Mute Filesharing.
http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
Out of all the movies to go to jail for, this guy picks Daredevil. Ugh.
It was probably better to download them than pay $9 a pop to see these "blockbusters". He should be given some sort of recognition for his service to humanity.
Next thin ya'll know, dang ol' house o' repersentatives an' courts an' lawyers be tarrin' it all up with the same brush used on Gnutella, Kazah and whatnot.
Dang. Put me right offen my coffee!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
the torrent of his trial is available at http://www.chin.../ oh wait, nevermind ;)
In Hong Kong, of all places...
'Cause there hasn't been anything out this year that would make me want to waste a couple of hours (or days) downloading a copy. I'd rather have the DVD if it's that important.
Wow so they are taking down the person who took part in the copyright infringement and not the software used... Oh wait its still early in the day, I'm sure BitTorrent will be blamed once again for its ability to be used for evil purposes...
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
These threads are quickly becoming a rehash of all the previous file sharing threads. Queue the people saying he was breaking the law, the people talking how sharing information isn't stealing, and finally all the people claiming that information wants to be free.
How is this lawsuit different than all the others?
Piracy is the least of his problems...
I use BitTorrent to get the updates for World of Warcraft. I'm not guilty of 'piracy' for that.
Headline should read: "People who share copyrighted movies guilty of copyright infringement."
But I guess that wouldn't get as much of a reaction, what with it being obvious and all...
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
In other news, a man in Delaware has been found guilty of beating another man to death with a toaster. The toaster industry declined to comment.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Here, here and here.
w00t
We're safe up here!
Coding projects blog - Code Slim
The government prosecutor Hayson Tse Ka-sze said it would be "absurd" to argue that the tracker server and not the uploader was responsible for distribution. He defined distribution as "sharing" and said the court would have to look at the intent of the legislation
Copyright-infringing copies of three films - Daredevil, Red Planet and Miss Congeniality -- were found on the defendant's computer during a customs raid on his home on January 12. Photo images of the labels of the compact discs were also found on the computer. A digital camera consistent with the make and model used to take the photos was found at the defendant's home, government prosecutor Hayson Tse Ka-sze told the court.
Read Epic the first RPG novel.
What I want to know, and the article doesn't say, is whether he was a "distributer" or whether he was just an unlucky sharer that was downloading a movie and got nabbed. If he was seeding the torrent, whatever -- he deserved it, I'd think that it would be "scarier" if he was just a user downloading/uploading by using the seeded torrent.
"This ruling means a lot," said Hong Kong Commerce Secretary John Tsang, explaining that it would deter other possible file-sharers.
What deters me is simply that it's more worth it to just buy the movie in the store. I don't have to waste bandwidth downloading it, the time to burn it to DVD, and my drive space while I do that. Most movies (especially real suck ass ones like Dardevil) are available for $7.50 at Target all the time. Hell, I just got Season 1 of Nip/Tuck for $18.88 two weekends ago!
DIASlipperySoapIncident
actually that sounds like a good idea.
im not kidding i am gonna go steal some kids candy, and know it is wrong.
then i am gonna go copy a dvd and know its not wrong
Bittorrent gives a grey area... you are not just 'getting' the file, but also 'hosting' pieces of it (or the entire thing if its still in the sharing network when you have the complete file). It isn't as open-shut as you imply.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
They only seem to target people downloading the "Summer blockerbusters" or the films that Hollywood seem to think will do well with the retards of the world. No wonder he torrented them, I wouldn't pay to see them :P (Or download them for that matter :P)
A sign that audiences are getting smarter?! (I don't think so)
Jan
Jan
Is there an overview about the different rulings around the world and involving different software?
for example, which platform has the most 'guilty' cases? or which land?
Better to sue him than to sue legit Bittorrent users.
Piracy? In China? The Chinese government would never allow that to happen. Now that this guy has been caught, that will be the end of trademake infringement in China.
How many times must this get corrected on /. before people stop using this false analogy? If you take a kid's candy, you have the candy and he does not. On the other hand, if you share a movie over the Net, you still have the movie, and so does the other guy. This is not stealing, it's copyright infringement.
"What are you in for?" "Pirating movies on the internet." "Really? What did you bootleg?" "Daredevil.. and-" "Wait one second! Did you say Daredevil!?" "Yeah." "So you like blind superheros huh. Well you'll fit right in here pal. You're gonna end up doing some things to yourself that will make you go blind. And if they don't I'm gonna do some things to you that will make you wish you were blind. Nice to meetcha." "Damn."
My humor is probably your flamebait
who was he being charged by? was in china? or interpol for international copyright laws? or the us? check my site so im not sooo anonymous.
This is hilarious because if the guy had simply left his apartment and walked to the nearest corner, he could have bought the DVD for next to nothing.
It's amazing to me that real piracy, where huge profits are made, is ignored while file sharing between friends is hammered.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
My initial thoughts were "Prison ? he only uploaded the thing , he didn't produce it"
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Users of piracy software are NOT responsible for any piracy which may occur when they put pirated content online for others to pirate.
OK. Fine. Who is? I mean, I've heard of victim-less crimes, but perpetrator-less crimes?
The EFF better be all over this.
OH NO!!! Not... the EFF!! I can feel the AAuthorities trembling from here...
If I could take the sweets from those kids, and after I'd "stolen them", they still had the exact same amount of sweets, I would have no moral problem with it. But hey, I'm taking the analogy too far, right?
1) The guy didn't get arrested for using Bit Torrent to illegally distribute others' work. He was arrested for illegally distributing others' work (re-read that until you understand the distinction).
2) This was not an arrest for using file sharing software. This was an arrest for copyright infringement. The tool that was used is immaterial.
And so on...
If on some planet those movies are considered to be 'blockbusters,' then his main legal defense should be, "But this is Earth."
This guy could be facing jail time and hefty fines while the people that made and starred in these god forsaken movies took thousands of hours of innocent movie-goers precious life away never to be returned are walking the streets free (and rich)....
When you do it it's stealing. When the gummint does it, it's taxes.
The worst, most blatant piracy I've seen in my live was in educational institutions and government offices, where they'll just copy stuff, install it on more than one computer, etc. Is this the original form of "Entertainment Tax"?
And to be caught and sent to a Chinese prison for... daredevil? Ick.... that just ain't worth it.
What do you know about chinese prisons?
Outside Hong Kong I'd expect token punishment to show willing in complying with international copyrights and so on. In Hong Kong I'm not sure. Under the brits the guy would do cold porridge, under the special HK administration, who knows?
I did have an ebay run-in with a weasel in Hong Kong, which I brought in the police for. It's in my journal.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Supplying some of the other 25%.
It's like saying that a headline reading 'Driver charged with hit an run' means that all drivers a running people down.
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
I live in HK, I've been following the story for a while.
the guy was seeding the films.
the customs and excise agents tracked him down by monitoring local torrent sites and then following up with his ISP from his IP address.
it looks like they downloaded the films(or started to anyway) themselves in order to get his IP address
this is a major deterrent to the endemic problem here of pirated DVD's. The pirates download them via bit torrent and then burn them and sell them on the street or in dodgy DVD shops in certain computer malls here.
It's already been stated here in the press that since this guy got arrested, P2P downloads have dropped by 50% from within the territory, it's a short term thing..once a suitable alternative comes out, the pirates will start to use it.
So if a tech-unsavy person is uploading while downloading as part of the protocol, s/he is likely not intending to infringe copyright in the uploading, and therefore likely not guilty of an infringement. However, the downloading itself may be an infringement, and by virtue of clicking the link, you have shown intention (though shown, it's not proven; accidental clicking, etc.). Incidentally, I do not know what would happen if you were downloading a copyrighted movie you already own (fair use/dealing), and you were aware of the uploading. In that case you may be infringing copyright, but at the same time exercising your right to a backup, though to exercise that right through the bittorrent protocol, the only means of acquiring a backup given the DVD copy protection, you must redistribute and inherently infringe portions of the copyright.
Yeah, the EFF is going to sue this "China" out of existance! They don't stand a chance!
A better analogy would be if you had access to a replicating machine, and little kids allowed you to use it to make copies of their candy. Still, even that analogy breaks down when you consider that movies, unlike candy, are not consumable.
Perhaps a better analogy would be going into a library and photocopying one of the books so that you could take it home and read it at your leisure. If you saw someone walking out of the library with such a copy, would you point and shout "Thief! Thief!", in the same manner which you might if you saw a shoplifter shove a dozen DVDs down their pants and try to leave the store? No? Then it's not stealing.
Is a person truly guilty of a crime if they only download these movies but refrain from profiting or watching them.. but they simply use the opportunity to aid the global community in accessing this information ?
Such court cases only happen because the movie industry pressures courts and law enforcement, presumably with some support from U.S. trade or diplomatic channels. Now, the clever thing about such court cases is that they focus on the black/white legality of an action, and ignore the wider ramifications. Very typical of the divide and rule approach. You are either for the movie industry, or you are for thr pirates. This is what Fox TV calls a "wedge issue" and it's a clever way of keeping people divided while avoiding useful debate.
It is a false issue, and anyone discussing whether "piracy is right or wrong" is falling into the trap.
What most people actually are for is a better way of getting content. We don't like thieves. We don't like stealing. But we find paying $50-$100 to take the family to the movies unjustly expensive.
The movie, music and TV industry has to give its customers what they want, or they will - court cases or not - lose those customers.
And the simple solution, by the way, is to boycott Holywood, and boycott the record labels that sponsor the RIAA. Consumers do not have much power, but - as Rosa Parks demonstrated - even the most humble of us can refuse to give our money to those that would mistreat us.
My blog
OMG!! Lets get rid of bittorrent now!! It can't possibly have any use other than piracy!!! Lets make it "illegal software"... At first I thought the title said "Bittorrent users guilt of piracy". I was like "Uh.. no" I downloaded knoppix from a torrent last night.. only reason it caught my eye. :)
Can all fish swim?
We've seen all this before, we know how this thread will go, allow me to sum up...
Pretty off-topic, but whatever...
Hollywood Blockbusters
A "Blockbuster" is a movie that grosses $100 Million or more.
Red Planet brought in $33 Million worldwide, nowhere near a blockbuster as it is defined.
But then I guess anything that comes out of hollywood (or even before it comes out) is considered a blockbuster these days, regardless of how bad it is. Hooray for marketing.
The only difference between a seeder and the other users is that the seeder has the completed copy. In both cases you're uploading something you don't have distribution rights for, so I'm curious how you're making the distinction.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Yah, that way you can save that precious bandwidth for all those porn movies you download.
Nor would you want to take up any of the 18 hours you spend playing fantasy games on the net. that would be a "waste" hee hee
It takes all of 8 minutes to burn a dvd, and god knows, with 500 gig harddrives these days, there is not enough room to store a 4 gig dvd on your hard drive.
In China...
/.ers may be pro piracy, insulted by the word pirace, anti-piracy, or whatever; but at least moral consideration was made at some point.
Pirated copies of all kinds of things are sold at shops out in the open for all to see. They don't even try to hide it.
At one place I thought was like a flee market, they were selling GBA cartridges for about $5 US (before haggling). The cartridges looked legit at first. I just assumed they were used, then I saw a 6 games in one cartridge. Not a game like the Atari collection or something like that but like 6 Super Mario games in one including a recently released title.
Another place I went to was in a strip mall like shop. It looked like a retail buy/sell/trade place you might find in the US. Maybe like a mini version of an EB games store. The clerk behaved just like someone working at EB might act. Not pushy, but really zealous about gaming. I didn't even know it was a store for pirated stuff, until the issue of price came up. A few games were priced higher than the others only because it required a different type of DVD. Between that and the prices, I finally realized what they were selling.
The point of all this? I wonder if most Chinese have even given piracy moral consideration.
For a long time, I've been very careful about piracy and stuff. I got my own convinctions about it, and I try hard to hold true to them. I've explained this to my wife, who is from China, over and over again. Yet she continually puts me in compromising situations, and has to be reminded why I wont go along with it. Outside of my influence, I don't think she has any considerations toward piracy whatsoever.
Just because it's fast doesn't make it illegal! Every time a dumb headline like this is posted the tech crowd shoots itself in the foot - It's like saying "Porsche driver guilty of manslaughter", these two things may have something to do with each other, but expressing it this way makes it appear as if they are causally related - which they are not.
It's not that this specific transfer protocol enables copyright infringement right out of the box or anything....
Code is Speech. No to Censorship.
"...If he was seeding the torrent, whatever -- he deserved it, I'd think that it would be 'scarier' if he was just a user downloading/uploading by using the seeded torrent."
I think that was exactly the point of the lawsuit; they (the media industry) want to give *all* who use bit-torrent for illegal distribution of copyrighted materials pause. Not just the seeder, but all those who consequently share the bandwidth of it as well (i.e., the leechers).
I would imagine that the only difference beween being a seeder or a leecher might possibly be the penalty the prosecutor asked for; unauthorized seeder or leecher - it's illegal just the same.
I'm not saying I like what happened, and I too would like to know if he was the original seeder, but I guess what I'm trying to say is - I don't think the media industry cares too much. I agree that going after leechers has more chilling implications, but that's probably what they're aiming for.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
'I don't have to waste bandwidth downloading it'
Bandwidth is very cheap and getting cheaper and faster. It won't be long before it is faster to download a film than it is to walk to the video store and back. In some places it already is that fast. Besides, most people have unlimited bandwidth deals where if you *aren't* using it, you are wasting more money than if you use it to it's full potential. Most programs can download in the background so that they do not disturb your browsing etc.
'the time to burn it to DVD'
You can do this in the background. If you use a modern OS like Ubuntu with built in support for burning to DVD, burning to disc is such a trivial exercise that it's hard to understand how Windows makes it so hard to do this simple task quickly. Even if you don't want to burn it, you can watch the film directly from your hard disk and then delete it when you are done.
'my drive space'
Because drive space is a scarce commodity? All you need is a gigabyte or two free for the twenty minutes it takes to burn.
It's not that I condone copyright infringement, but you will have a hard time convincing other people that they should go out in the rain/snow, etc. to buy a film rather than download it from the comfort of their own home.
Wouldn't it be simpler if the music industry just decided that downloading films via the internet was a viable business strategy?
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Come on, tell me I'm wrong. What this guy did was not stealing. What parents do nowadays is literally stealing candy from a kid. Admit it - you've swiped a few of those mini chocolate bars from your kids stash! So, what does that make you - a copyight infringer or a thief?
If I remember correctly about the way BitTorrent works.. if I download something, I automatically serve content as well, right? So if I download something like a movie, a game, etc.. I am also distributing it.. hmm.. looks like BT is in for some trouble for sure.
What I want to know, and the article doesn't say, is whether he was a "distributer" or whether he was just an unlucky sharer that was downloading a movie and got nabbed. If he was seeding the torrent, whatever -- he deserved it, I'd think that it would be "scarier" if he was just a user downloading/uploading by using the seeded torrent.
Note: I'm going to be using "you" to mean "people in general", not "you in particular".
Now, I'm not familiar with Chinese copyright law as it stands, but I have a feeling he's guilty either way. If you want to glamorize this and call it "civil disobedience", then be ready to go down for your actions. If not, just admit that as the law stands now, regardless of whether that is morally right or wrong, the action is illegal, and that he is being punished for what he did.
I'm more likely to laugh at every person- downloading, uploading, sharing, seeding, whatever- that gets caught and whines about "their rights" than I am to feel sorry for any of them.
No, I do not buy movies or CDs often- a few here and there, and most likely at a band's show for a CD- but I also don't bother downloading a bunch of stuff and then whining that I got caught. You seem to be in a similar boat to me. If you enjoy it, you buy it when it gets cheaper. Save yourself the money and the hassle of downloading.
And if all of it sucks so much, why do people want it in the first place?
What about NON copyrighted, personal, or government information you want to PROTECT?
that you'll never be caught.
good movies either:
- are not from hollywood;
- don't make them enough money to justify action;
- all of the above.
so go ahead and download your good movies at will.
What ? Me, worry ?
The better analogy would be someone going into a bookstore and photocopying books instead of purchasing them. Then you would have people yelling "Thief!" most likely.
I am amazed at the utter stupidity of people like you. To the point that I bet you can not breathe, walk and chew gum at the same time.
Listen complete and utter moron. Copyright infringement IS NOT STEALING. stealing requires me to deprive you of that item. if I take a copy I made of something you created and give it away you lose NOTHING... you cant even legitimately claim a lost sale as those that download it or take it for free would have NEVER bought it in the first place. what idiot (other than one as stupid as yourself) would be satisfied with a horribly compressed small resolution copy of a movie where they can get most of the drivel in the $8.00 bargin bin at full resolution DVD.
it amazes me exactly how incredibly stupid you are. I'm betting that others feel stupider when they are within a 10 foot circle around you because of your immense stupidity sucking what intelligence there is around you into the black hole of stupidness you are.
Please, do everyone a favor and go kill yourself. the world is going to hell with the mentially retarted people like you having children and then teaching them to be incredibly stupid.
Please? will you die for the good of humanity? please? dont make me lobby for open season on those with an IQ lower than 70 (yours being around 42 means that you will be one of the first to die)
wow, i feel stupider just reading the insanely stupid crap you post.
If you're going to make legal analysis, at least try to use the correct terms. It's headlines like these that confuse the public into believing that "movie internet piracy" is something one can be convicted of.
Digital Citizen
...and in other news, smoking causes cancer!
You, my friend, have been trolled.
It makes me feel all good inside to see that you not only posted a nice long essay, but acused me of being so stupid when it was you biting on a classic troll.
Thanks for making my day!
-FK
Setting aside my opinions on whether IP should exist or not, the people running the tracker server(s) sharing pirated data could conceivably be held responsible, a la Napster, for contributory infringement. That doesn't mean the primary infringer can't be held responsible as well. Either way, the BitTorrent software itself hasn't been held responsible, which makes me happy.
AP is reporting that "A Swedish court on Tuesday handed down the country's first Internet piracy conviction, fining a man 16,000 kronor ($2,000) for using a file-sharing network to distribute a movie online". Link here.
Clearly, Google is the next Microsoft.
That should be, even if does _not_ happen to match your definition.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
He had a copy (or bootleg) discs and seeded them to BT. See this story from the South China Morning Post (it's a mirror, the Post site is subscription only).
Actually, BitTorrent has more in common with FTP than most "p2p" applications (strictly speaking FTP is also a p2p protocol). Just like FTP you need to know specifically where to get a torrent before you can do a transfer. The searching stuff has nothing to do with BitTorrent (same as FTP).
The difference is the speed. Because BitTorrent uses many peers it's a hell of a lot faster than FTP unless you are the only person using the FTP server. So BitTorrent lets more people get more stuff much faster. FTP is a bandwidth leaching protocol while BitTorrent is a bandwidth sharing protocol. Neither provide searching which is what most people mean by "p2p" applications.
In short: you're an idiot.
If he was seeding the torrent, whatever -- he deserved it, I'd think that it would be "scarier" if he was just a user downloading/uploading by using the seeded torrent.
What's the difference? In both cases, he's illegally distributing copies to others. Seeders are nothing more than people who have a complete copy.
What deters me is simply that it's more worth it to just buy the movie in the store.
Last time I bought a DVD legitimately, I had to sit through twenty minutes of unskippable adverts to get to the film I legitimately own. And I have to do it every time I want to watch that film. I haven't bought a DVD since; the stuff you get from the 'net doesn't have crap like that in it. I'd happily pay for the service I get from pirates, I'm not willing to pay for the service I get from the legitimate copyright holders.
Keep this in mind when you think you have something funny to say:
"Explaining humor is like dissecting a frog. You can do it, but it tends to die in the process."
At the end of a sentence, a period should go inside the quotation marks.
Uh huh. You don't connect the dots there, but it sounds a lot like you're justifying piracy on the basis that movies are too expensive. You say we want a "better way to get content" without mentioning a distribution method, but you do go on to mention cost. So it sounds like your "better way" is a "cheaper way." Well guess what? That still doesn't give you the right to rip it off. Know what I do when I can't afford something? I don't buy it. Besides, if you wait, the movie will cost $4 to rent, and even the poorest of us can afford that. The "cost as justification" argument isn't going to work.
And the simple solution, by the way, is to boycott Holywood, and boycott the record labels that sponsor the RIAA.
That's true. But such a boycott kind of loses the message if you rip off what you're boycotting. Otherwise, you're just boycotting *paying* for movies, and that's probably not the message we want to send. So if we're going to boycott Hollywood, let's also make sure not to watch their movies.
as Rosa Parks demonstrated - even the most humble of us can refuse to give our money to those that would mistreat us.
I don't know where to start on that one. Rosa did pay to get on the bus, she just didn't sit in the back. And please, don't cheapen what she did by putting it in the same class as movie piracy, because civil rights is just slightly more important. I also hope you're not saying that piracy is civil disobedience, because it's not. It's just taking what you want without paying for it. Doesn't make you an inspirational leader, just makes you a criminal.
It is more like reading the book while being in the shop and telling your friends that they should do the same... can you consider that stealing ?
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
See my signature re: your justifications and rationalizations.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
The person that originally seeds the torrent is clearly more guilty. If anyone in this story can be accused of distribution, it's the person that made it available. If it was not for them, it wouldn't be there.
demand an appeal man!! there is no way anyone downloaded those movies...
Don't ya hate it when the correct spelling of your favorite screen name is taken?
You see downloading as a hassle, most downloaders actually see buying it legally as a hassle (in addition to the costs). It getting cheaper doesn't change that you have to drive to the store to get it legally while downloading is just one mouseclick away.
Linux is not Windows
This is probably the most assanine thing I've ever heard on /.
During the time of Charles Dickens, there were no copyright laws for books in the USA. They didn't need
them because very few books were written in the USA. All their books were written by English authors
like Dickens - so not having copyright laws mean that US printers could print British books without
paying any royalty & sell them for pennies.
Charles Dickens saw this on his visit to the USA & tried to fight against this.
However, USA started having copyright laws on books only after there were enough American authors
whose rights needed to be protected. By that time the book industry was jumpstarted by having a
good business of seeling cheap pirated books & they could build on it.
Every country starts respecting copyrights/patents only when they have more things to
protect than to steal.
Wrong. That's only done in the US, only sometimes, and is a legacy of incorrect typesetting in a certain early American press.
So he was distributing works in violation of copyright... punishment IS due him. That the headline at least does not suggest that the extremely valuable medium he misused is not being assaulted unfairly is, I feel, encouraging.
tone
tone
You mean Hong Kong, China? Wow, imagine that, internet restrictions happening there. Must be indicative of future trends worldwide...
Support the FairTax
Look. I am guilty of speeding... hell I even let my insurance lapse a few times. I've shoplifted before (when I was a kid) and YES I admit to having downloaded music and movies from across the internet using a variety of means. (I also buy music and movies when I think they are worthy... haven't bought music in a VERY long time but you might find that I own DVD versions of some TV shows and movies that are also on my hard drive.) I make only weak attempts to justify my actions in that I know what I do "isn't right" but at the same time, I don't feel so wrong about it either. Whenever three conditions meet, I am inclined to buy! Those conditions are Availability==TRUE, Affordability==TRUE and Appreciation==TRUE. I think it's generally true of just about anyone out there.
I don't think it's good that the current market is essentially a "buyer assumes the risk" market. After all, will sellers accept a return of a CD or DVD based on the "I didn't like it" argument? I think they should but they don't. This practice, when done maturely, essentially helps to balance this problem in the market. Is it "wrong"? Yeah... it's wrong by a variety of standards, but it's also a market demand otherwise so many people wouldn't be doing it.
I don't think we should feel any worse than we feel for our neighbor when he gets a speeding ticket. (And I don't think he should get much more punishment than a speeding ticket either.) Just like anyone else, he knew the risks and he took the chance... gambled and lost.
I guess what I'm saying here is that we don't need to call an end to "copyright" and all that. But we do need to bring sanity into play when all of this is going on. I think we can all pretty much agree that it's insane now. If the motive is profit, throw the book at them. If it's the kind of (ab)use that we see on a regular basis, give them a [reasonable] fine and move on. I think it would be fair enough.
How many illegal MP3 downloaders hopped on the iTunes bandwagon? Apple put together a solution to the problem that was fabulously successful.
There's a huge revenue potential waiting to be tapped; but they're not about to give up on defending their out-dated distribution channels.
What a bunch of tools they are.
How is this lawsuit different than all the others?
Because there was no lawsuit. He was charged with a crime by the government, not with loss of profits by the studio.
"while file sharing between friends is hammered."
s/file sharing/copyright infringement/
s/friends/thousands of people across the globe, most of them perfect strangers and a handful of people you'd probably evade if you did know them/
If you're going to use those replacements, then you should also do this one for the original phrase...
s/is/are
Yeah. I have too much time on my hands.
If the cracking down on BT was in order to protect the illegal DVD market in the region? Or simply trying to show goodwill to certain parties. Tinfoil hat off.
Please don't sue me, Linus Torvalds and Marshall Kirk McKusick! I've been distributing your blockbusters via BitTorrent for years!
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
? I'm guessing you are a Bittorrent user? Why is it assanine not follow the status quo, and use stuff "under the radar"? Sure, Bittorrent CAN be used for legitimate material...which is great. But so can FTP. What can Bittorrent do that FTP cannot?
No wonder that movie made so little, everyone wanted to bittorrent it.
Wait what's this? Apparently this man was the only seeder and never had a single leecher on that torrent?
Never doubt the power of Afflick!
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts that you're up against - and then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers and then you cash in on the guilt. Now that's the system, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
I go to the store for a lot of things. Groceries, clothes- hell, I drive by it for work on a daily basis. I've told store employees that they can follow me if they think I'm shoplifting, as long as they shut the hell up and don't talk to me. I can walk in, grab what I'm looking for, and be checked-out in probably 10 minutes, tops.
If you want to be anti-social, fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the "hassle" of buying it is just a convenient excuse for most.
(copy and paste follows -- see url at top for original article), 00.html
--
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1841351
First correction: "BitTorrent can be used legally and illegally, but
it is possible using the software to find films and television
programmes"
No. Bittorrent is a transfer method like http or ftp. It has 0
searching capabilities. Bittorrent is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from
Kazaa / Grokster / Etc.
Let me explain. Bittorrent alone is not a downloading tool. It is a
downloading method. In order to distribute files by Bittorrent, a
connection file is created. That connection file can be used by a
Bittorrent client to download (and upload) the content file in much
the same way as a URL can be used to download content. Now, to
download the file, a client program is used. The client program is
similar to an FTP program except that it uses the bittorrent download
method rather then the ftp method.
Now, you'll note that there isn't any searching mentioned anywhere
above. That's because there is NO SEARCHING in bittorent. It's a
download method, NOT a p2p program. To repeat, bittorrent is a
METHOD, NOT A PROGRAM.
So how do people download things with bittorrent? Similar to
finding a URL through google or an indexed directory such as Tucows,
there are sites that have indexes of bittorrent connection files.
(i.e. http://www.filerush.com/ These sites are NOT connected in any
manner to bittorent -- they are simply index sites for the bittorrent
connection files.
A user can connect to one of these index sites and search that site
for the connection files. However, it should be noted that the user
is searching the index site and NOT some imaginary "bittorrent
network" (because there is no such thing!).
Which brings us to error number 2:
"But it has proved harder to shut down its successors, such as
Grokster, and now BitTorrent, because they are networks that do not
have a central database of illegal files."
Bittorrent CANNOT have a central database BECAUSE IT IS NOT A
NETWORK. It is a TRANSFER METHOD. However, there IS a database of
illegal download files. That database is... THE INDEXING SITE! Yes
that is correct, there IS a central point. And music and movie (and
software) conglomerates DO attempt to shut down these sites.
(Remember hearing about www.suprnova.org? That's why the popular
bittorent index sites are hosted in countries that do not view LINKING
to copyright materials as illegal.
The reason Brian Cohen will not be sued is because he has done
nothing wrong. He hasn't created a network where files are being
distributed. He has only created the transfer method. The only
"network" is the various indexing sites and THOSE will be targetted.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, he should get two hours removed from his sentence as time served.
No, because that's working within the accepted terms of most bookstores nowadays.
Maybe i'm confused though
and now you know why i love p2p. you can walk to the store, ask the clueless guy if he has it, go home disapointed because he doesnt, drink yourself into a rage, etc.. or you can mosey on over click a link ( http://www.mininova.org/tor/51864 ) and have the movie finish in a few days. not on demand but much more convenient. theres also the fact that i would never ever remember to see this movie unless i wrote it down somewhere. people tell me to see movies all the time. i cant possibly remember them all.
i would pay 5$ CAN for new releases that had a very fast seed and no DRM. no problem. unfortunately, no one wants to make this possible. sad really.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Because the word "piracy" gets the Slashbot faithful worked up into a foamier lather. I'm surprised it didn't read "theft".
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
In a similar fashion, your parents are guilty for your idiotic posts.
I had a positively hell of a time getting the damned thing in my PC.
I clicked the torrent link from their web page and the torrent wouldn't start. Damn.
So I clicked on the client link; it turned out to be e-donkey, which I already had.
See, when LOTR came out, I couldn't get a ticket (the theaters were sold out), so I took the four hours to download it and... jesus, it was all fuzzy and the sound sucked. I watched five minutes of it and deleted it, and impatiently waited until it came out on DVD (and got tickets to II Towers early). And promptly forgot about bittorrent.
But bittorrent is the only way to get SW:ITP.
I'm on win98 at home; I love Mandrake but Linux hates my vid card (or ATI hates Linux, pick one). e-donkey said there were "security issues" and i should upgrade, so I DLed the upgrade. As soon as I started instaling, it demended that I let spyware/adware in. I clicked the "hell no go fuck yourself" button and went back to the old version, which crashed (actually, I mean it rebooted) the PC about every 20 minutes.
Guess what? Cancelling the e-donkey install doesn't cancel the spyware install! God damn those evil bastard motherf... sorry, I get mad.
The movie was well worth the aggravation. It was the funniest movie I've seen since HHGTTG (which wasn't as funny as the BBC version BTW).
Anyway, my experience taught me 2 things about the MPAA's "fight about piracy" - they don't care about piracy. No way in hell is it any way shape or form a threat. NOBODY is going to go through all that bullshit to get a movie unless it's a) not available anywhere else and you have good information it kicks ass (like ST:ITP) or b) you're a penniless loser who Holywood isn't getting a dime from anyway.
BUT the movie industry spends MILLIONS making a movie, and here a bunch of nerds just make their own incredibly funny movie ("But you said light beers...") which is head and shoulders above any B Movie I've ever seen; these amateurs did a much better job than any monster movie maker ever did.
And they GAVE IT AWAY FOR FREE!! Hollywood execs must be sweating bullets and doing their damndest to kill the internet, exactly like and for the exact reasons the RIAA wants the internet dead.
THEIR CASH COW HAS MAD COW DISEASE and is dying. My local musician friends who give CDs away, post the MP3s or (better) FLACs on the internet threaten the established music recording industry the same way.
JUST LIKE MICROSOFT hates Linux. It's the same thing.
So let's stop calling a spade a "pointy shovel," shall we? MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft fear one thing: competetion. We, the people, are finally making beachheads against the corporates.
It isn't against "pirates" or illegal downloads. It's the legal downloads they fear.
-mcgrew (yeah, that got my AC post modded down, fuck it. Mind reading capcha="forever")
In related news, the dreaded 'Hammer Cartel' has been indicted on 199,000 counts of smashed thumbs.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
"in what is believed to be the first case involving BitTorrent file-sharing software" More than a year ago my friend was charged by the MPAA for sharing "Beauty and the Beast" ( It was actually x-men, beauty vs the beast). The case never went through and cox (his isp) turned his internet back on in a week. Im not sure why they are going so much more hardcore on this guy, and not my friend.
Not to mention that downloading is still breach of copyright--it just isn't cost-effective to pursue. With the distinction eliminated, expect to see BitTorrent users of all stripes targeted.
I love this. All the flippin' geniouses out there insisting its the same as stealing. When you steal, one party has the item(the "thief"), and another does not(the "store", "person"(If you steal their candy, or car, or right shoe...), etc.) At most this is copyright infringement, but dear god, who wants to go to jail over those WONDERFUL movies that in total may have brought in 100 million dollars? I mean, come on. Hell, I've downloaded more music than you can shake a stick at. Makes me guilty of copyright infringement, right? Well, After hearing X amount of music, provided I have the money(or I might have to be a "thief" and steal it), I go to the store, and guess what? I BUY THE F@#$ING CD!! PEople forget that there have been statistical studies done, and since P2P has been "the thing", music and movie sales have actually gone up! Why don't people see this connection? This is like saying you're going to throw the guy who speeds in jail for some made up charge, like "thoughtcrime"(from Orwell's 1984), because by speeding he was endangering the lives of others and unless stopped would have had a 100% chance to kill people when he lost control of his car. I mean, come on. Am I going to get arrested because I am not the entity of "Polytechnic University", to which my copy of Microsoft Visual Studio .NET is licensed to? I think not.
What a fucking ridiculus statement! I am "guilty" for my own actions, because of a little thing called "responsibility". A DVD of Daredevil, regardless of how crap the film may be, has no responsibility.
It's not even like comparing apples and oranges. At least they are both fruit.
Bandwidth is very cheap and getting cheaper and faster. It won't be long before it is faster to download a film than it is to walk to the video store and back. In some places it already is that fast. Besides, most people have unlimited bandwidth deals where if you *aren't* using it, you are wasting more money than if you use it to it's full potential. Most programs can download in the background so that they do not disturb your browsing etc.
Maybe in some places, but it still takes me 2 to 20+ hours to download about a gig of music (legal for whatever its worth). That is also if the download succeeds. I'm not sure how the filesize of movies or TV shows compare to legal music downloads or if they are more heavily seeded or whatnot. But there is no real content that I cannot save on my 80 Gig DVR in up to HD quality for my monthly cable fee or watch on demand or go to a video rental and get a DVD quality copy on the way home from work for $4 and I can return it on the way to work in a couple of days. Its so much cheaper, easier, more reliable, and higher quality for me to do it that way vs fucking around with a download.
Because drive space is a scarce commodity? All you need is a gigabyte or two free for the twenty minutes it takes to burn.
Again, in less than 20 minutes and $4 I can have anything I want in at least DVD video quality. Burnable DVDs still cost money don't they?
Wouldn't it be simpler if the music industry just decided that downloading films via the internet was a viable business strategy?
Funny! I would love to hear the music industry decide that downloading films via the internet was a viable business strategy!
So tell me how it is a viable business strategy when its already being done by people like you without paying for it?
I personally believe that all video and audio entertainment should be purchased like the cable TV model or online porn model. You can get basic service, premium channels, all anal, all lesbo, all prego, or nothing -- your choice. The fact is that for a nominal fee I can have more media than I can even justify my time and money to archive, at least not by default.
Being that this is information and it is a service, it should be marketed and billed as one.
Links point to goatse-style photos.
Beware.
I saw it on the news like 2 months ago.
Someday, when you grow up, and move out of your mom's basement, you will learn what all of those "extra" keys are on your keyboard. Let me give you a little bit of an introduction:
- Shift: This key allows us to put capital letters on things. Usually, these occur at the beginning of sentences.
- Apostrophe: This little friend shows possession, omission of letters, and indicates plurals.
- Period: This whacky character allows you to end a sentence. Somewhat like all of the ones I have been using. Otherwise, the reader doesn't know when one horrible train of words ends, and another begins.
But don't blame yourself - I'm sure it was your editor, or Microsoft, or even your second class education you got in public schools. Please don't attempt to bring yourself up to a higher level - just wallow in the mindless hole that is so easy to fall into.It would, if there was a well-funded RIAA campaign to equate orange juice with piracy. And if many Slashdot readers happened to both commit piracy and drink orange juice.
Copyright infringer found guilty of infringing copyright. I bet he wore a shirt, pants, shoes, maybe even socks. Probably has those dastardly fingers and toes, lips and nose.
... movie pirate convicted of movie piracy
Man wearing shirt found guilty of copyright infringement.
Man wearing pants found guilty of copyright infringement.
Man wearing shoes found guilty of copyright infringement.
Man wearing socks found guilty of copyright infringement.
Man with fingers found guilty of copyright infringement.
Man with toes found guilty of copyright infringement.
Man with lips found guilty of copyright infringement.
Man with nose found guilty of copyright infringement.
No news here people, bittorrent is just a noun, just a tool.
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
Except its not black and white. It's not movie A is worth watching or not worth watching. Instead consider that movie A may be worth 1.5 hours and a 10 dollar movie ticket, it may only be worth 1.5 hours of my time, or it may not be worth watching at all. For movies that I believe are gonna fall into the middle ground I will just download them.
What, were your parents like 2 when you were growing up? My parents never took candy from our bags. If anything, they gave us the leftovers from the night. The only people you had to worry were going to raid your stash were your siblings, and then you just raided them back. It's part of growing up. Most adults have the disposable income to just go out and buy candy in, you know, decent portions if they want, you know. They're not going to raid their kid's Halloween stash.
I must remember to invite you to a cocktail party.
...they really are.. I thought this was some sort of troll since the links obviously pointed to a page on UCLA's AsiaMedia server.. Alas, someone has inserted the goatse crap on their server.. :(
I still consider it unethical to do more than skim a book in a bookstore that you have no intention of buying (heck, I enjoy buying books just for the sake of increasing the size of my personal library), but if the bookstores have figured out that they make more money that way by selling overpriced lattes or something, more power to them. I'm still not going to do it, though. I prefer to read in the comfort of my own home.
Ditto with the library. I wouldn't be yelling thief if someone walked out of the library with 300 photocopied pages, but I'd give them a dirty look, and might have a word with the librarian. Why? One, because they probably just emptied the library photocopier, making it a pain for other patrons who need to use it. Two, you can always, always just check books out from the library. Just sign up for a damn card.
Oh, come on ... you KNOW you want the mini Coffee Crisp bars ... and the caffeine in Coffee Crisp can't be good for the little 'uns - so THINK OF THE CHILDREN - SLEAL THEIR HALLOWE'EN STASH!
And those little boxes of Smarties - well, everyone knows the purple ones are like the purple telletubbie. You gotta raise your kids real good and keep such evil things from them. Where is your sense of SELF-SACRIFICE? Eat those smarties!
And the little O'Henry Bars - you kids could have a peanut allergy (well, they didn't yesterday, but all that extra chocolate and sweets MIGHT trigger a reaction). Do you want your kids to have to avoid peanut butter the rest of their lives? Eat thoe little buggers before they can screw up their immune systems.
And the Mars Bars - well, they're just loaded with sugar and caramel and chocolate and sugar. There's nothing in them except pure calories. There's no hope for you - you NEED that 20" laptop to fit your supersized lap - but the KIDS - think of the KIDS. There's still HOPE for them. You're helping them avid a lifetime of ridicule and bad health by eating their Mars Bars.
And the Caramilks - Hallowe'en is on s SCHOOL NIGHT! Do you want your kids staying up all night hyped up on sugar WONDERING HOW THEY GET THE CARAMEL INTO THE CARAMILK? They'll be too tired to do their schoolwork properly, so they'll be held back, drop out, and end up selling their bodies for crack. All because YOU didn't do YOUR DUTY as a PARENT and EAT THAT CARAMILK BAR!
While you're at it confiscate those bags of chips. You don't want them to develop the same craving for useless calories and fat that you have, and think that a bag of chips in one hand and a chocolate bar in the other are a balanced meal. Besides, you need something salty to balance all the sweats you're scarfing down.
Okay, seriously - instead of having the kids going out and getting high on sugar and being sick to their stomaches the next day, why not help them host a Hallowe'en Party? Let them have the fun of doing the whole costume bit, and playing games or watching the Rocky Horror Picture Show (well, maybe you could have the parents over for THAT), and not have to worry about:
they also won't just blow off their schoolwork because they've "got to get out there before all the good stuff is gone".
Really - loosen up, have a party, let the kids of all ages participate, get some of the other parents involved. The parents will be going "Thank god we don't have to drag the kids all over the place". You may even get to meet some of your kids friends, and (gasp) their parents.
I've worked in a bookstore and I am a librarian, but I still think the only word that could possibly describe you is: ASSHOLE!
Something I still wonder about when this story has its regular /. run -- if I'm downloading a film with BT, and stop seeding through at a 0.97 share ratio, then I haven't uploaded enough data for anybody to have a complete copy of the film, and (as far as I know) they wouldn't be able to do anything with the data they received from me other than create a coaster -- and this without even bothering to figure in the fact that my 0.97 didn't go to any single user, but was spread around. Have I actually shared a film? Does Warner Brothers hold a copyright to a particular sequence of bits, in addition to images of Neo rapping with the Architect?
no, it's not. Copyright is distribution rights, not aquiring rights. That's why you're not breaching copyright if you go into a store and steal the dvd for a movie. So, if you're just downloading, you're not breaking any laws. Of course, if you're talking bittorrent, you're also uploading, so...
Capital punishment is still really big in China. One can be sentenced to death not only for murder, but also for crimes such as embezzling, etc.
So what happens when they catch someone who they can prove has seeded hundreds of movies or other copyrighted content? I'm certainly not an expert on Chinese law, but I can imagine it getting to the point where someone might be executed for sharing copyrighted content.
So, when someone dies as a direct result of the actions of the *AA, will people finally realize how ridiculous this shit is? Will the right wingers get off their moral high horses on this issue? Or will it just be swept under the carpet?
Your post is funny because it explains why the second post wasn't funny, by telling the poster that humor is ruined when it is explained.
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
Downloading movies- Definately Illegal (At least until they air on TV). TV Shows, however, are a completely different story. For one, the broadcast signals are availiable in HD to everybody, at any time. In fact, they're flowing right through you and me right now. So any show broadcast in your area can't be illegal to download since you already had access to it. That being said, I also pay for cable (from the same company that provides my internet access and therefore, my ability to download shows to begin with ;-)). Therefore any show that I download that played on any one of the many cable channels that I get can't be illegal for me to download since I already had access to it. That being said, I can understand downloading a show from, say, HBO if you're not paying for HBO being illegal.
People will argue that what makes it illegal is that the commercials are taken out of the shows. There are several problems with this argument- 1. I don't have to watch the commercials on TV anyway. I'm free to channel surf or whatever. If I were recording the shows on a VCR I could pause the recording during commercials so they weren't recorded anyway. So, for downloaded shows it's like someone on the internet offered to hold the remote and pause your VCR during the commercials for you, for free. Plus, TiVo and Windows MCE let you skip commercials anyway. 2. The TV companies don't get any more money if I watch the commercials or not. You are not paying for the TV shows by watching the commercials- companies are paying for the TV shows in return for the commercials being shown- not necessarily watched (thought that's their hope). Plus I'm not a neilson family so I don't determine the ratings for any show, and thus have no bearing on the amount paid per minute of commercial.
And the final reason why TV shows are legal to download (or should be) is that the people compressing them and removing the commercials are doing so for free. They are not profiting off of someone else's work, but doing it as a favor. The best analogy, as I see it, is if I were to buy a new HDTV and invite all of my friends over to my house to watch The West Wing, and I turned the TV off during the commercials. Is that illegal? No? Then neither should downloading TV shows be.
Wait... What?
Are you now as fat as your parents were when you were going up?
Do you steal or plan to steal from you childrens candy bag?
If the idea is being "under the radar" you might have a point.
As far as the technology behind the two applications, BitTorrent is far and away a better way to transfer large amounts of data than FTP. BitTorrent will always be faster than FTP if you assume the same sized pipe since clients contribute bandwidth to the swarm.
I would love to hear the music industry decide that downloading films via the internet was a viable business strategy!
;)
<blush>Errr.. I meant film industry. Sorry!</blush>
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I have been to China. I have also been to US/UK/Japan/Thailand and India. Yes, you get pirated films/games/applications more easily in China, India and Thailand.
One of the major reasons for piracy in a developing country is the price of the original item.
Here is an example: seeing a film in theater will cost in India between Rs.10-100 depending on the city and quality of the theater (btw 25 cents to $2.50). It will cost $7-10 in US theaters.
Buying a DVD of a film in India will cost minimum Rs.500 ($12)...whereas, in US, you get DVDs between $6 to 15. A reasonable price for DVDs in India for any film should be around Rs.100-200 (between $2.50 to 5).
Clueless executives with no idea of the market/living conditions of a country makes decisions sitting in their air conditioned suites. These idiots remind me of the 'belt tightening teams' sent by World Bank when a country required financial aid. Recently there was an ATP Event in Vietnam, with tickets so overpriced, the Vietnamese who went to buy the tickets had to turn back disappointed.
Why is Microsoft not that worried over software piracy in India? Other than some token raids/press releases, they dont do anything. The reason - they want Indians to be proficient in their software for a future workforce.
Tat Tvam Asi
Can't argue with that. It IS very efficient. I suppose what I'm after is at least the OPTION to password protect one's offerings, and encryption.
I'm a dad, and I firmly believe that it is my duty to scarf as much chocolateBBBBDAsacrifice myself for the well being of my son. I happend to likeBidisA candy. And beside I deserve my 'vig' for hustling the little hoodlum from house to house... (JUST KIDDING - he's not *that* little)
All typed with tongue firmly embedded in cheek (yes, mine).
(please excuse the vi editing codes...)