Slashdot Mirror
The Internet Archive Starts Seeding Over a Million Torrents
An anonymous reader writes with news that The Internet Archive has started seeding about 1,400,000 torrents. In addition to over a million books, the Archive is seeding thousands and thousands of films, music tracks, and live concerts. John Gilmore of the EFF said, "The Archive is helping people to understand that BitTorrent isn't just for ephemeral or dodgy items that disappear from view in a short time. BitTorrent is a great way to get and share large files that are permanently available from libraries like the Internet Archive." Brewster Kahle, founder of the Archive, told TorrentFreak, "I hope this is greeted by the BitTorrent community, as we are loving what they have built and are very glad we can populate the BitTorrent universe with library and archive materials. There is a great opportunity for symbiosis between the Libraries and Archives world and the BitTorrent communities."
Plus, they tend to not have that annoying 'don't pirate this movie' warning and a 20 minute run of trailers for movies you don't intend to see and you can't break out to the main menu to actually, I dunno, watch the fucking movie you put in the player.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Forgoiong a discussion on whether or not the "entertainment" in question actually promotes Progress or is useful, it does seem to say that after a certain period of time that "entertainment" will no longer be protected by an "exclusive Right." Certainly you don't have a problem with the Constitution, do you?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I wish we had a law saying that you can obtain something for free if the copyright holders refuse to sell it to you. This would keep a lot of this horrible litigation from ever occurring.
Movies used to be made and paid for on the basis that they'd be seen ONCE. Now the entertainment corporations want multiple kicks at the can. They want their first run theatre rights, which they've always had, PLUS DVD, Netflix, cable television, regular television and merchandizing revenue.
You aren't being "realistic". You're not even a troll. You're an industry bum-kisser. Why don't you tell us all how much money "The Avengers" made, then try to tell us again how the industry is bleeding to death.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Do you know what happens with all of that money earned by litigation against piracy? It goes directly back into the pockets of the anti-piracy groups. That's right -- while the industry kicks and screams about those poor starving artists in court, they don't lift a finger to help them out with the money that should go to the artists.
So don't go pointing your fingers at the pirates. Point your fingers at the people who license and manage the content. They're the ones controlling its distribution and taking a good big cut of the profits for themselves. What, you think the writers and actors behind Game of Thrones had any control over whether or not they could make their stuff available on hulu or netflix?
Please, if you actually think that you need to pull your head out of the lala land the MAFIAA have created. It's not that people really aren't willing to pay -- it's that companies like HBO try their darnedest to give potential customers the worst treatment ever. Let's face it, would you go to the DMV and pay a fee, stand in line for hours, and then talk to a lady that's got an attitude OR would you rather click a few buttons and have your new registration appear right in front of you for free?
Intellectual property law is designed to protect the creator's right to control the property. It carries no obligation to make the property (or music or movie) available to others
One could argue that the whole purpose of copyright is to benefit the society by stimulating the creation of new works that the society can then enjoy, but the part where the works exist but are denied to society under any terms kind of makes the copyright pointless, so the question is whether it should even apply to those cases.
Ezekiel 23:20
Duh - "The Avengers" lost money. Every film that Hollywood makes loses money. Especially the ones with the biggest box-office numbers.
Didn't you know, the entire industry is funded by multi-billionaire philanthropists? The only reason they insist on you buying tickets is so they can count how many peoples lives they are enriching.
Most of the best content comes from passionate people making it because it is the thing they want to do most in life. This is true in the arts, music, science, sport, and most other areas of cultural production. Recessions tend to produce a cultural flowering, because people have more time on their hands, so more time to devote to their passions. We used to need huge business enterprises to do DISTRIBUTION, but we have that sorted now thank you. Having less big budget movies being made does not make me think our societies will become a cultural desert, although, as a movie fan and someone who works in the industry I can see how you would be worried. And by the way the pirates are entirely winning, and no, it isn't meaning no new movies. This is flawed thinking.
Korma: Good
"flooding the torrent channels"?
That is so not how BitTorrent works.
I don't think they are trying to "validate" bittorrent. That's just a side effect of what they are doing. They are simply using one of the most efficient and cost effective ways of distributing data because it helps them, and possibly makes a better experience for the users.
freenet offers anonymity but they don't really need that here. Bittorrent also offers fault tolerance, doesn't it?
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
OK, man, but your argument has been countered successfully. The BT protocol works out of the box the way how validated downloads work: they send you a hash, and once you downloaded, it will check if the file produces the same hash as the source. Can the hash be faked? Sure, there are some ways to do that, but that is a problem with HTTP downloads as well. From a cost and technical point of view BT should be perfectly legitimate choice for a company to distribute their shit.
The real deal here is the bad reputation of BT in the media. There's a whole crusade against file sharing and BT in particular, the technology is associated with criminals, hackerz, child pornography, necrophilia, and communism. Can you imagine the suits in the director board meeting taking the chances for such an association? They rather pay for bandwidth. As a side effect, our internet infrastructure is distorted with having terrible download/upload speed ratios and you have to pay a fortune just for getting a static ip with a decent upload speed. If central repository distribution is a business model that became supported by many parties, including ISPs, cloud service providers, social media and audio/video streaming.
Has anybody mathematically proven that the current copyright laws are detrimental to the sciences and useful arts? If we could do that maybe we could get some laws struck down as unconstitutional. (I know, I'm dreaming...)
It's a nice idea: the problem is that the only maths our current crop of politicians understand is how to calculate how much money is being contributed to their re-election fund, and by whom...
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.