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."
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?
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".
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!
Better to sue him than to sue legit Bittorrent users.
Course you also look at another movie readily available online. "It's All Gone, Pete Tong." Its a good movie but wasn't readily available for a good while so it was the fastest way to share a great film which I then purchased. Its much easier to pay for something you will actually enjoy.
Although this has go to be embarassing, busted for pirating Miss Congeniality? Ouch!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.
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.
All it will take to totally bust systems like that is a small change to the law, to make it so that if you operate a system participating in such a p2p network, you are liable for infringement using your system.
Since these systems have no advantage whatsoever over non-anonymous systems like Bittorrent except when being used to distribute material illegally, it will be easy to get such a change to the law made.
you are stealing would-be profit from the movie industry
/done feeding trolls
Sigh. You can't quantify a possible sale. It has no value. There's no guarantee that had circumstances been different, the person would have actually bought the movie. Your argument holds no water.
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
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
How about distribution political criticism, anonymously? Under the current political climate,(Usage of a grand jury to indite members of the press, to disclose their sources, with threats of imprisonment for noncompliance), if they had their way I'm sure they would most certainly like a proposition that you suggested to become law. But the last time I checked, the US Constitution's 1st amendment provides us with freedom of the press, which to my understanding, included the internet as such a publication medium.
Hardly. I'd NEVER pay to see these movies, but I might download them for free out of curiosity. Either way, no money goes from my pockets to theirs.
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
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)
So they should just give up?
Why is this sort of comment always very near the top of slashdot comments in all stories to do with a P2P user being convicted of copyright infringement? Wheres the comments denouncing the act of copyright infringement that took place? This person broke some laws and is being punished for it, and the top thing on slashdot is how to avoid being caught. Wonderful.
They would laugh your argument right out of the courtroom. And yes, the first amendment allows rights to speech, but if you say the wrong things, it can be held against you. You can speak out agaisnt the president, but you cannot talk about ways to kill him.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Just as many times as people point out this "correction" as if it really mattered - it's illegal either way, regardless of what you call it.
"Hardly. I'd NEVER pay to see these movies, but I might download them for free out of curiosity. Either way, no money goes from my pockets to theirs."
No, but IP - or entertainment, or lack thereof if you will, goes from THEIR pockets to your brain in a way.
Just as you would never pay to see those movies, they would never let you see those movies for free. I believe that's fair enough.
If you don't want to pay to see those movies, wait for them to be aired on T.V. even though you'd still be paying for them then, you at least wouldn't be participating in copyright infringement.
IF you have some argument against that (taking too long before it airs, etc.) then obviously you do have a vested interest in seeing it when you want - and some form of compensation, typicall in the form of money, is not absurd.
Yes you can. You just can't threaten to do it. Just like you can't threaten to do it with anyone else. The only difference is that he's got his own security force actively looking for threats and running them down while most everyone else won't even know they've been threatened unless you do it to them directly and they have to go to the police and courts themselves.
Only in the same way that going for a walk steals a sale of petrol from the garage. Or that going for a drive steals a sale from the bicycle shop. Or that going for a bicycle ride steals a sale from a shoe shop. Just about anything you do could be considered as stealing a sale from something else, so this is not a helpful way of looking at things. Eating chicken tonight? You've just stolen a sale from a beef farmer. Eating beef? Ditto for chicken farmers. Going veggie? You've just stolen loads of sales from all meat-based industries.
So stop with the "stealing a sale" stuff please; it's pure bollocks.
'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...
Of course you can. You can even make movies and TV shows about it (at least once a year on The West Wing and 24). You may well be harassed, but if it's not an actual threat, you won't be sent to the Gulag (unless you're a Muslim, that is).
Now define an anonymous peer-to-peer network. One that uses some different routing rules to try to disguise which hosts are requesting what? Hey, doesn't that sound familiar? The use spoofing and zombies and whatnot to disguise where an attacker is coming from? Oh yes, that's the Internet, too.
They can try to pass such laws, but the fact remains that these networks will continue to exist because 1) they will become to widespread to stop, and 2) such a law could easily be eaten for lunch by an enterprising barrister.
My blog
Illegal, you mean like it used to be for black people to go into white restaurants/washrooms?
I don't agree with piracy, but be careful about confusing the concepts of "illegal" with "immoral". "Illegal" doesn't always mean "wrong".
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.
Since these systems have no advantage whatsoever over non-anonymous systems like Bittorrent except when being used to distribute material illegally, it will be easy to get such a change to the law made.
That's like saying only criminals have things to hide, therefore good citizens will not mind a compulsory search and seizure. "You want a warrant? What are you, a terrorist?" We have a right not to show the government everything we do. That doesn't make it illegal.
Hey, at least we got buttsex back from the Republicans.
The movies were crap and it might help illustrate at least one reason why people pirate. I mean really, who is going to pay for those movies?
I'm always a little perplexed by this line of reasoning. If it's not good enough to enjoy... why bother obtaining and watching it? If it's good enough to enjoy, and you're glad that the person who made the film (and his/her hundreds of co-workers and investors) spent the money and went to the trouble of producing it, why deliberately rip off the people making the stuff you do like?
So... if it's quality material worth watching, then it's worth paying the people who produce it (and encouraging them to make more). If it's not worth watching it, why tarnish the name/concept of P2P technologies by squandering it on pirating something copyrighted that, in the same breath, people say is not worth the trouble? I can never understand the people who think they're somehow "punishing" the studios into making better movies by ripping off the (at best) mediocre stuff while piously saying that they'll pay for the quality stuff (assuming, ahem, that they actually do). You indicate that you buy movies you like, but your first sentence (which you say is illustrative) just gives moral comfort to the twits.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Just as many times as people point out this "correction" as if it really mattered - it's illegal either way, regardless of what you call it.
But the point of calling it stealing is not to establish that it is illegal -- this is a given. We all know this.
The point of calling it stealing is to make it sound morally wrong. This is why the correction does matter. Pretty much everyone thinks stealing is morally wrong, and the argument serves to try to transfer that feeling onto a different crime entirely in order to justify punishments far harsher than what "hypothetical loss of potential sales" would actually warrant.
Legality isn't morality. I don't feel like I've sinned when I go five over the speed limit, I don't feel like I've sinned when I copy one song from a Smashing Pumpkins album that I would never buy, and I don't feel like I've sinned when I violate the DMCA to watch a DVD under Linux.
Do you think minor traffic violations should result in jail time? What if I called it stealing? Sure, it's not, but both are illegal so that doesn't matter! Send the thieves to prison!
The enemies of Democracy are
I'm not justifying piracy, I'm saying the problem is not about piracy, it's about overpriced, out-of-date products.
Did you actually read my posting, or are you simply attempting to divert my argument back to the wedge issue that I clearly identified?
So long as Hollywood tries to force people to pay over the top for movies, there will be pirates. This seems obvious, and any discussion about whether piracy is "good" or "bad", whether it's "theft" or "copyright violation" is a waste of time. It's the question itself that is misleading. There is no good answer except to change the way movies are sold and provide a product that people will be glad to pay for. It's basic sense. Charge a couple of dollars to download a good quality movie, from a reliable network, and people will for the most part happily pay for the real thing rather than muck around with fakes.
As for boycotts, I'm serious. Rosa Parks started a boycott that lasted almost a year. It was the only way that the community could fight against an oppressive regime.
And yes, this is about civil rights. Maybe you've missed this, but over the last decade the pendulum has started to swing towards a regime in which all content is property, and all unauthorised access is a crime.
Let's connect the dots, shall we?
1. Take communal property.
2. Become owner of this property.
3. Rent back to original owners.
4. Profit.
No-one honestly cares about a few B-grade movies. The grand prize is a lock-down of the world's cultural, genetic, and technological heritage, and every court case of this nature pushes the law further towards corporate policeman and further away from protector of the community.
But heck, interpret this as a vote for piracy if you want to!
My blog
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.
Then why not call it "anal rape," or "kidnapping"?
Because words mean things, that's why. And because of that fact, calling it 'stealing' is stupid, just like calling it 'murder' would be.
Odd. I know quite a few Muslims who are unhappy about US policies, and none of them are in a "gulag". Perhaps you want to paint the US government with a broad brush of hatred of Muslims, leaving out the small matter that the people at Guantanamo were all captured on the battlefield against US soldiers, operating under the control of no nation, not signatories to any of the Geneva conventions, are not US citizens, and in many cases have been shown to have attended training events on terrorism tactics.
But, what the hell - don't let facts and actual threats from terrorism get in the way of pimping for some anti-US "Insightful" points.
Can you honestly tell me that you've never watched or participated in any event that, had you been asked to pay money (or more money) prior to participating you wouldn't have?
You're missing the point. Bad movies or not, the people who produce and distribute them are asking you to pay for them. It's not like that's going to come as a surprise to anyone. I see stuff on TV all the time that I would not (well, beyond the cable rate I'm paying) pay for, ever. But that's not the same as, essentially, sneaking into a theater to see the same, not getting caught/lectured by anyone, and saying, "Well, no one told me I had to pay, at least, not to my face..."
The troubled portion of the market contains those that would have paid for the content if they couldn't get it another way, but they found piracy to be a suitable solution.
Suitable to whom? Certainly not to the people that make their living producing the things that their audience want.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm way off topic here...
that the people at Guantanamo were all captured on the battlefield against US soldiers, operating under the control of no nation, not signatories to any of the Geneva conventions, are not US citizens, and in many cases have been shown to have attended training events on terrorism tactics.
While your points may be correct, it's difficult to substantiate. The administration says this is the case, but we have no way of verifying it.
But, let's assume that all your points are correct. Given that, while it may be legal to do whatever we want with them, is that really what America stands for? Indefinite detention? No legal representation? Harsh conditions and treatment? Alleged torture?
We have other places too, like Diego Garcia, and probably many more.
These places and ways of treating people are not what I think of when I think of the grand ideals my country was founded on. These are not the things I joined the military to defend. These things are what we accused the Soviets and other communist countries of doing - and held them out as reprehensible. It's disgusting and shameful that our country would act in such a way, and then be brazenly proud of it.
I'm ashamed of what my country does and I'm angry that there seems so little that Americans with a conscience and sense of true patriotism can do about it. And I'm saddened that so many Americans think it's okay that our country does these deplorable things.
Doesn't it bother you that just because the administration has declared someone to be an "enemy combattant" that such a person has no rights and no protections, and that our government feels it has free-reign to abuse and detain them indefinitely?
Just out of curiosity, could you please show me in the Constitution where the due process provisions only apply to citizens of the United States?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I think people are quick to dismiss the rights of those held in Cuba; if our places were reversed and it was a Middle Eastern country invading the US to spread Shariah Islamic Law, would you be so quick to condemn your countrymen--fellow citizens--caught fighting that force? Because they're disorganized and haven't been through boot camp?
The fact is those people were defending against invaders, ideological differences aside, and were not wealthy enough to have a highly-organized and well-trained militia like much of the rest of the world. Just like many Americans don't feel the government adequately represents their interests abroad, it's certainly within the realm of reason that some of those individuals did not feel Osama bin Laden represented their interests in attacking the US, but when a counter-attack was launched it was a matter of defending their home and way of life.
Being poor requires fighting face-to-face and with short-range mortar and explosives, not invisibly from the skies like Americans, and these people resorted to whatever tactics were necessary to muster a defense against invaders. In my opinion (whose weight is questionable), it is much more a terrorist act to strike at an enemy from the sky without fear of retribution than to fight him on level-ground, face-to-face. At least when you can see your enemy you know who you've killed, instead of accidentally exploding a wedding party.
The reasons you're giving for giving the OK for locking up these prisoners of war sound an awful lot like the reasons given for rounding up and imprisoning or killing Native Americans (and I have therefore a hard time accepting that). My point behind replying is to say that the quickness with which you determine guilt and innocence can easily be turned on you and the ones about whom you care. Justification of the treatment is justification of your own treatment.
I am not speaking regarding the rest of your post (which may or may not have merit).
You're missing the point. Bad movies or not, the people who produce and distribute them are asking you to pay for them. It's not like that's going to come as a surprise to anyone. I see stuff on TV all the time that I would not (well, beyond the cable rate I'm paying) pay for, ever. But that's not the same as, essentially, sneaking into a theater to see the same, not getting caught/lectured by anyone, and saying, "Well, no one told me I had to pay, at least, not to my face..."
I'm not saying no one told them to pay, only that it is seen as a victimless crime. You're comparing it to a movie theater, but you forget that taking a theater seat that could potentially be occupied by a paying customer (or that seat would make a customer happier, a 'good' seat), using the theater's restrooms, etc., constitutes the use of the producer's resources that they would not have otherwise used.
Pirater's believe this to be as close to a victimless crime as possible because no one uses any resources (except those volunteering the hosting) that they would not have otherwise used, and the producer never would have seen that revenue in the first place.
I completely agree and would like to add something:
the people at Guantanamo were all captured on the battlefield against US soldiers, operating under the control of no nation, not signatories to any of the Geneva conventions, are not US citizens, and in many cases have been shown to have attended training events on terrorism tactics.
Sounds just like the US war for Independance. A bunch of non-uniformed rabble using geurilla (sp?) tactics to defend their home.