Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Brazilian Court Bans P2P Software

Posted by Soulskill on from the next-up-cars-and-cheeseburgers dept.

Earlier this year, at the behest of an anti-piracy group consisting of the usual suspects from the recording industry, a Brazilian court ruled that a company named Cadare Information Technology must implement a filter on the P2P software they distributed on their website to weed out copyrighted content. Cadare was unable comply with the order because they didn't develop the software; they merely offered it for download. The case went back to court, and a Brazilian judge has now decided to ban distribution of the software because it can be used to assist copyright infringement. "He went on to suggest that any website offering the software alongside advertising (i.e, trying to profit from offering it) would be committing a crime, punishable by between two and four years in jail."

40 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Is it time.... by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to start killing the lawyers yet?

    1. Re:Is it time.... by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Funny

      The number of them seems to be getting to the point where we're going to need to start culling them like deer. Perhaps a tag system ... say two per year per person. Ahhh ... I can almost see the BMW and Brooks Brothers logos up over the fireplace as you tell the grandkids "Yep, that one was a civil lawyer ... got him from 250 yards"

    2. Re:Is it time.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lawyers breed innovation.

      Would the technologies come up in the last few years if Napster wasn't banned?

      Keep banning the stuff. We'll come up with something more awesome.

    3. Re:Is it time.... by emurphy42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, great, now I have this mental image of the Goatse troll posts actually being steganography for something else even worse. You owe me a gallon of brain bleach.

    4. Re:Is it time.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Holy shit I finally get it. American "capitalism" has subtlety transformed from a system where competition breeds innovation in order to one-up your competition and be rewarded with increased profits, into a system where lawyers ban all kinds of crap to fuel sneaky and underhanded ways of skirting the "law" in order to screw everyone out of all of their money!

      It all makes sense now!!

    5. Re:Is it time.... by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The number of them seems to be getting to the point where we're going to need to start culling them like deer. Perhaps a tag system ... say two per year per person. Ahhh ... I can almost see the BMW and Brooks Brothers logos up over the fireplace as you tell the grandkids "Yep, that one was a civil lawyer ... got him from 250 yards"

      They mark trees to be culled with a big red X painted on them. Howbout we mark the lawyers with Bluetooth headsets?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    6. Re:Is it time.... by ivucica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And we don't even have to spend time and effort - they already do it themselves! Question is, how do we differ them from the common businessman?

    7. Re:Is it time.... by knarf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really, no. This story is not about 'American capitalism', unless you want to add Brazil as a state to the Union which I'm sure they'd be less than happy about.

      If you see an economy as an organism you'll see that that economy/that organism suffers from some of the same ailments as a live organism. As soon as the organism gets successful there will be parasites which try to hop along for the ride, taking from the organism without giving back. The world economy is quite successful in most part, which has lead to the rise of a whole host of parasitic species. Some of them are easily recognized as they are the common class of criminal, from pickpocket to burglar to bank robber. Others are not as easily recognized because they have both adapted to the host as well as changed the host to make themselves be unrecognizable. In the latter class is where you'll find those lawyers, the bonus-grabbing old boy network, the self-serving politicians and other leaches.

      In an organism you can act in several ways to combat a parasite infestation. You can try to kill the parasites, help the organism's immune system to recognize them and thus indirectly kill them or you can try to make the organism a less hospitable host to the parasite.

      It is clear that the first option is not a choice in a civilized society. The second and third choices would be usable though: point out the parasites to society and change society to be less hospitable to them. As the parasite infestation is very deep and wide, especially in those organs of society which are responsible for directing the immune system (politics and law) this will be a hard task. Hard, but not impossible. Not all organs are infested, find out which have yet held the parasites at bay and use those to eradicate them from the rest. That is easier said than done but is seems the only way to clear out the mess without killing the organism, the civilized society which we want to live in.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    8. Re:Is it time.... by master5o1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      how do we differ them from the common businessman?

      Is this really a problem?

      --
      signature is pants
    9. Re:Is it time.... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is far too late...
      [rant] Noticed how 2/3 of slashdot news today is about the legality aspect of one thing or the other ? Noticed how we spend more time on the issues of free speech, copyright violation, net neutrality than on actual coding ? The cool stuff is out, the dull is in. Granted, a coder, a hacker, a security expert, has to know some legal things, but it should not waste half of our time. Life is too short for this. Increasingly it feels like knowing the law bears little correlation to not being charged and that rational thinking and common sense bears far less importance in the judicial system. I wish we were spending less time being concerned on these issues and we could keep focus on nifty reverse engineering projects or amateurish robotics. I guess what I am trying to say is ...

      FUCK. THIS. SHIT.
      [/rant]

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  2. another judge with no clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does this mean it's still legal to download other P2P software?
    What's the point of this ruling?

    1. Re:another judge with no clue by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's the point of this ruling?

      It's not quite pointless. The purpose seems to be the creation of a "sacred" status for copyright law, something that would cause anyone to think twice about creating anything that might have some indirect role in copyright infringement. In other words it's designed to intimidate, which explains why no allowance seems to have been made for the fact that peer-to-peer software can also have legitimate uses, like the distribution of Linux ISOs.

      From the summary:

      Earlier this year, at the behest of an anti-piracy group consisting of the usual suspects from the recording industry, a Brazilian court ruled that a company named Cadare Information Technology must implement a filter on the P2P software they distributed on their website to weed out copyrighted content. Cadare was unable comply with the order because they didn't develop the software; they merely offered it for download. The case went back to court, and a Brazilian judge has now decided to ban distribution of the software because it can be used to assist copyright infringement.

      This is like banning hammers because some murderers have used them to bludgeon people to death, or banning cars because a few criminals have used them as getaway vehicles. It also ignores the infeasibility of successfully filtering all copyrighted content in all digital forms with no false positives or false negatives. Either those judges are morons who have no idea about the glaring flaws that are easily pointed out, or the absurdity of this ruling is a deliberate component of the Machiavellian "make an example of them" style of authoritarian thinking that seems to be universally exhibited by pro-copyright interests. In fact, the same could be said of the DMCA in the USA and the legislators who supported it.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:another judge with no clue by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is one thing to pirate content, it is another to make money from pirated content.

      This ruling is against the second, and the title wrongly suggests that all P2P software was banned, which would not make sense. Find a pointless discussion that the way of distributing content is irrelevant below.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    3. Re:another judge with no clue by TheCowSaysMooNotBoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't it more like banning guns because the majority of the users use it to kill people instead of wildlife or instead as for self defense?

  3. Why just p2p? by KeithIrwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Firefox gets used for piracy a lot too. Why not ban it?

    I'm not really clear why the courts have been treating peer to peer software as different from client-server software. My best guess is that in a client-server model, they see the server as being responsible for the illegal content, but in the peer-to-peer model, they blame the software for the illegal content. Really, this doesn't make a bit of sense, especially in light of the fact that there is no technical distinction in any TCP/IP protocols which differentials which computers are "servers" from which are "clients" or "peers". It's just a model of network interaction which exists in the minds of the software developers and users.

    I'm curious if this will change if and when judges understand the underlying technology better.

    1. Re:Why just p2p? by shark72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I'm curious if this will change if and when judges understand the underlying technology better."

      Statements like this are like Chicken Soup for the Pirate's Soul. We convince ourselves that it's all because the people in charge just don't understand the technology. I completely understand; this is a much more acceptable situation than the judges understanding the technology just fine.

      There's a huge disconnect here. When Napster, Kazaa, Morpheus, and most recently The Pirate Bay went down, file-sharing fans quickly pointed out that it was obviously because the legal professionals don't know what they were doing. "Just like Google!" they shouted. "A web browser is P2P! Let's ban guns, too!".

      The problem is this: I've read all of the rulings (I'm kind of a nerd like that) and it's generally clear that the lawyers and the judges understand the technology just fine. They might not be able to code a P2P client themselves or even mount a Linux volume, but reading the documents makes it very clear that they know exactly how the technology works and how it's being used.

      You can use Occam's Razor here: it's a hard scenario to swallow that there simply aren't enough defense lawyers who understand P2P technology. If the law really worked like so many Slashdotters think it does -- a legal world in which intent and usage aren't relevant -- then wouldn't all of these judgments be thrown out once some legal folks as smart as you took up the cases and clearly showed that it was all a matter of the judge not understanding the technology? A simple matter of a smart person explaining to the appeal court that a pirate torrent site is just like Google, a P2P client is just like a web browser?

      The ironic thing here is that if you ask any lawyer with a background in copyright law, they'll be happy to explain to you exactly why TPB, etc. aren't exactly like Google and why Kazaa and Morpheus weren't just like a web browser. It's actually even pretty easy to understand by folks who don't have a JD. Yet we collective Slashdotters just continue to stamp our metaphorical feet and pine for the day when judges just understand. "Substantial non-infringing uses," "contributory infringement," "vicarious infringement" and even basic principles like mens rea whoosh past us like a late summer breeze, while we close our eyes and dream of a day when legal professionals will finally be as smart as we are.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:Why just p2p? by MrMista_B · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, then, explain to me why it is impossible to use Google in a way that infringes copyright.

      And, if you cannot, why then it is different from these other search providers.

      You are incapable of doing so.

    3. Re:Why just p2p? by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, then, explain to me why it is impossible to use Google in a way that infringes copyright.

      And, if you cannot, why then it is different from these other search providers.

      It has nothing to do with technical differences and everything to do with how the tools are used. Yes, P2P has legitimate uses and is used by many for legitimate trading of files. However, the dominant use is illegitimate trading of files.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:Why just p2p? by shark72 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're setting up a false premise here -- nobody believes that one can't use Google to infringe. We're all smart people here and we owe it to ourselves to not fall into these sort of silly traps.

      If you're genuinely curious why "just like Google" doesn't work, Google on "substantial non-infringing uses." It's a fundamental legal test for contributory copyright infringement.

      Turning it around, if you're wondering if Google and similar facilities are in danger of being held liable for the actions of their users, this is an important one to understand:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

      Another critical thing to understand is that safe harbors (the DMCA being the most relevant) are, to mangle the metaphor, a two-way street. Yeah, they'll protect you, but only if you make use of them. For example, Google and many other sites honor DMCA takedown requests. If you're running a P2P site and you know that filtering out pirated material would put you out of business, you don't have the luxury of ignoring takedown requests simply because honoring them would affect your site's viability -- and excuses like "I'm too busy" or "I don't have the manpower to handle all those requests" don't hold any weight with the court. To take advantage of the DMCA safe harbor that Google and so many others enjoy, you must take active steps to make use of it.

      That appears to be similar to what happened in the case described in the article.

      HTH.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    5. Re:Why just p2p? by Totenglocke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One of the dominate uses of the internet is viewing porn (not going into any potential copyright on said porn). Does that mean that the internet should be banned under existing obscenity laws?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    6. Re:Why just p2p? by shark72 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I've yet to see one which says, "Well, this can be used for infringement, but technologically, it's no different from other programs which are not used for infringement"."

      But how would that be relevant -- and more to the point, how would it help the case?

      Pirate tracker sites share much of the same technology as, say, legaltorrents.com. The latter gets a pass while the pirate sites go down because of things unrelated to technology: the actions and intent of the people running them. This is one of those fundamental legal things, unrelated to the level of technical experience of the person making the judgement.

      "Certainly that's been what's been behind the decision to ban "peer-to-peer software" on a lot of private networks. And yet, this same logic isn't applied to other technologies which have also been used for piracy like ftp, tftp, newsgroups or http."

      Because it's irrelevant. It's about actions and intent. And we should acknowledge the people who have been busted for serving up pirated files via http and ftp.

      "The judges aren't idiots. They have a basic understand of what's going on and how these programs work, but they don't have a deep understanding of how the internet actual works. If they did, at least some of the decisions would have to be written quite differently."

      Well, to be fair, your belief is a common one among Slashdotters: the problem is not that we don't sufficiently understand copyright law, but that nobody in authority -- not one person -- sufficiently understands the technology. If they did, then they'd throw out all of this "actions" and "intent" and "safe harbor" and "substantial non-infringing uses" mumbo jumbo and simply understand that since a warez tracker or Kazaa trades packets in much the same way as other technologies, then the operators can't be held liable.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    7. Re:Why just p2p? by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The only reason its dominant use is illegitimate trading of files is because it's popular, period.

      Invent an efficient file transfer mechanism... one that can beat the efficiency of anything invented so far, and if it ever happens to catch on with any legitimate community, I can guarantee that it will also be appropriated by people who do not give regard for copyright, and in short order its predominant use would be for illegitimate file sharing.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    8. Re:Why just p2p? by shark72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The truly fear and depression induced thing about Slashdot, is just how many of its' readers appear to have drunk the government or corporate Kool-Aid with regard to things like copyright, and actively defend and advocate the government/cartel position."

      Don't look at me. I think copyright terms and (in particular) statutory limits are hugely of control. Understanding how something works certainly isn't drinking Kool-Aid. I'm agnostic about piracy; I certainly did enough of it when I was a teenager.

      Disliking copyright law is no excuse for not understanding it. Notice how the same arguments keep coming up and Slashdotters keep getting surprised? The "it's just like Google" fallacy has been around for as long as Google itself, and yet people are still surprised that it's not a magic bullet.

      The state of self-serving, willful ignorance of the basics of copyright law is pretty sad. If file-sharing enthusiasts want to change the law, first they must understand it. Tilting at windmills and counting on loopholes that only exist in the collective imagination of the file-sharing community won't help.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    9. Re:Why just p2p? by NickFortune · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To use a metaphor, if some particular car brand became a favorite of bank robbers, it would be ridiculous to go after the makers of that car.

      I think I'll play Devil's Advocate: Suppose someone made a car with bulletproof bodywork, a battering ram, and forward-mounted oxy-acetylene cutting torches. And then marketed it at people who "wanted to make some out-of-hours withdrawals from their local bank". Sure, you could use it to get the weekly shopping in, but you'd have a hard time arguing that such was the intention behind the vehicle.

      That would seem to be closer to the mark in this case.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    10. Re:Why just p2p? by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Except this is *Brazil*, where DMCA doesn't apply...

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
  4. sheesh by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ruining someone's life for 2-4 years because the Brazilian court system is dabbling in pre-crime... Kind of makes you wonder why society considers the copyright system an equitable trade...

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:sheesh by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ruining someone's life for 2-4 years because the Brazilian court system is dabbling in pre-crime... Kind of makes you wonder why society considers the copyright system an equitable trade...

      Scary part of it is, something just like this can happen here in the States if the Usual Suspects decide to spend the money and buy up some more Congresscritters. Why buy off a judge to get a precident set when you can just buy the Congresscritters and get the laws you want passed?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:sheesh by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      when the law starts making tools illegal rather than going after the "crime" it becomes pre-crime: presumption of guilt by possession regardless of actual guilt. anyone that uses WOW, linux isos, ADV anime promotional materials (they use p2p to avertise their material), distribution of public domain/creative commons material etc. will lose out because the legal system chose to set a catch all trap to stop the evil pirates. the problem is that it is ineffective, feeds contempt for the law and negatively impacts people few or not that use p2p for its legal uses. it has gotten to the point where it isn't enough for these companies to sue actual infringers, now they're going after potential infringers wholesale. there is no justice in that, it is indefensible.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  5. Guess he'll have to ban the Internet... by meerling · · Score: 3, Funny

    Guess he'll have to ban the Internet...
          "...because it can be used to assist copyright infringement..."

  6. Re:Why just software? by Shikaku · · Score: 2, Informative

    UK already did that.

  7. Why stop there.......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's ban all computers while we're at it too "because it can be used to assist copyright infringement". And without a computer I won't be able to run the software. Oh and we need to collect money everytime a person sings a song in their head. Because the record label is not being paid for the content since you heard it on the radio and just kept replaying it in your head. We'll put chips in your heads to monitor what songs you've played in your head every month and send you a bill on itunes.

  8. A common (American) misconception... by Inf0phreak · · Score: 2, Informative

    Precedent is a common law thing. Brazil - and pretty much the rest of South America - has a civil law system. The common law article even has a link to a neat picture: Legal systems of the world.

    --
    ________
    Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
  9. It's as logical as castrating judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Should the judge be castrated, because his penis can be used for rape?

  10. Time to ban energy by IsMyNameTaken · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, lets see...

    CD burners: only pirates use those to make copies of disks

    DVR: makes illegal copies of shows

    MP3/4 players: plays copies that are likely illegal

    blank media: odds are it is going to be used to make illegal copies

    mass storage: who needs over a few MEG, any more and you must be using it to store illegal music/movies/software

    printer: you could print out books cutting out the publisher

    computers: used to copy music/movies/software and share them

    email/mail/pigeons with flash drives: used to send illegal copies

    When it comes right down to it the only way to stop anything from "assist[ing] copyright infringement" is to ban all energy, without movement data cannot be transferred hence no copies! Now how much energy will it take to cool Brazil down to absolute zero?

    --
    while(1){sig.get()}
  11. Whoa. Nice way to get bribes? by No+Eye+Deer · · Score: 2, Informative

    I haven't been following WOW at all, but don't they use BitTorrent for distributing their updates? Will they ban Opera for including BitTorrent support in their browser too? Imagine all the lobbying required for application vendors to have their P2P-enabled software to be "legal".

  12. Correct "translation" of facts by kusanagi374 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm brazilian and I've read Internet Legal's press release about this (which is a bit like EFF), and what the judge actually prohibits is showing ads FOR THE SOFTWARE. The website in question (www.iplay.com.br) displayed ads which, according to the judge, implied that the software was meant for illegal file sharing.

    Also, what happened here is that a second judge REVERSED the decision made by the first one, that said P2P applications are like knifes: you can use it for good OR evil, and there's nothing the maker can do about it. The second judge compared the P2P software to an establishment that sells both drugs (illegal) and soda pop (legal): even if legal products are available, the correct thing to do is to shut everything down.

    in pt-br: http://www.internetlegal.com.br/2009/09/tjpr-decide-que-e-ilicito-o-uso-de-software-p2p-para-baixar-musicas-pela-internet/

    in english (courtesy of google): http://translate.google.com.br/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.internetlegal.com.br%2F2009%2F09%2Ftjpr-decide-que-e-ilicito-o-uso-de-software-p2p-para-baixar-musicas-pela-internet%2F&sl=pt&tl=en&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF-8

  13. Re:Right on, ban P2P! by Totenglocke · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry, but I disagree. Why? Because OSS doesn't always provide what people want since it's made by nerds coding software that THEY want, not what the users want. For example. I'm a gamer (among other things) so I need Windows. If I pirated it (I don't, but this is hypothetical), it wouldn't be "slowing the progress of Linux" because, as great as Linux is, it's not good for gaming. Yes, I've run games in Wine, but until everything runs fine and it's easier to install games than it is for Kanye to piss people off, Linux will never be a gaming OS. That will probably never happen because most of the people writing Linux aren't gamers.

    I've had my laptop Linux only for awhile, but my desktop never will be because the people writing code for Linux (generally speaking) couldn't give a rats ass about what I want in an OS. So, as much as I like OSS and think it will gain a much bigger market share over the next decade (due to smart phones and netbooks getting people used to it), I don't think OSS will ever "win" because it's not focused on the users desires, only the coders desires.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  14. Links to more illegal software by noidentity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So all of the following are now illegal in Brazil, since they can be used to assist copyright infringement: Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari, Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Filezilla, the cp Unix command, etc.

    1. Re:Links to more illegal software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Blizzard WOW updater is a bittorrent client. So the main way of downloading those sometimes massive patches is illegal .

  15. Can't let you communicate that, Dave by mykos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a dangerous place to be when governments tell people what they can and can't communicate and how they may or may not communicate that information. Every other industry adapts to market conditions except the content industries. All they do is lobby governments so that they can maintain their business model and not go the way of the wagon wheel makers.