Anti-Piracy Group BREIN Demands Torrents Time Cease and Desist

An anonymous reader writes: Not even a week has gone by since Torrents Time appeared on the scene, and the site has already been served with a cease-and-desist letter. Anti-piracy group BREIN, based in the Netherlands, has deemed the streaming tool an "illegal application" and demands the administrators "cease and desist the distribution of Torrents Time immediately."

Comments

to hell with devs

[alphatel]

Immediately tie up anyone who creates a method to distribute material over the internet in lawsuits.
Force them to consume all of their time and income in legal fees
Guarantee that after they are decimated, several hundred anonymous, hidden services with the same agenda will surface with far greater impact.

Wow that did not last very long!

[Joe_Dragon]

Wow that did not last very long!

But the real issue just suing over tools that can be used.

What about usenet? Has the lawsuits ageist that stopped or has it's usage really dropped off other then the pay servers that are geared to downloading files.

Re:Wow that did not last very long!

[Dins]

What about usenet?

Shhhhhh....

Re:Wow that did not last very long!

[Dins]

To expand my "Shhhh" comment, I don't think Usenet has yet risen to the level of "low hanging fruit", but let's not give them any ideas...

However downloading via Usenet is more complicated than via torrent, and Joe Average User would have no clue how to go about it. That said, I know some major Usenet providers have been DMCA'd and abide by them.

Re:Wow that did not last very long!

[sims 2]

Since we're suing tool makers why not go ahead and sue the makers of the auto dialers telemarketers use. That would greatly cut down on the telemarketing calls we receive. Save us all a lot of time and money.

Re:Wow that did not last very long!

[neminem]

I disagree with your last sentence: there are plenty of private torrent sites that are exactly as you describe: low profile and under the radar. I don't even know anything about the vast majority of them, just that there are a good number of them, and I'm lucky enough to have gotten into one years back, that I use all the time. The nice thing about it is, being private, you're not in much danger of getting caught (and, being small, nobody's even going to try to sneak in or break them down - they're going to go after higher-visibility targets like demonoid.) Thanks for all the tv, !

Re:Wow that did not last very long!

[sexconker]

LOL?
Those private sites and trackers don't interview people and find out who they are. They start with a group of friends and they invite more people and the first few groups of users get invites to send out. The site operators do not verify who these people are, nor can they.

If randos on the internet can get an invite when someone on reddit makes /r/secrettorrentsite the instant the site goes live, you have no way to prevent the MAFIAA from getting an account. These sites depend on having a large user base to download files from. They're typically set up such that invites "run out" when the tracker starts crashing from being overloaded. New invite waves go out when capacity is added (never) or when users drop off and the average number of concurrent users on the tracker falls below the "shit is crashing" threshold.

Further, if you want to dream up a scenario where only fully-vetted people get an account, the MAFIAA can always lean on an individual they are already suing when they subpoena the logs from the ISP and realize they're a member of secretorrentsite.com

Re:Wow that did not last very long!

[sims 2]

Well the people making the dialers ain't selling them to the telemarketers for free so I figure they have more money than some Podunk torrent software thats free..I checked the torrent time homepage it doesn't even have any ads on it. Its likely being run at a loss by someone who thought it was a neat idea.

The funny thing is

[roc97007]

This is the type of technology we were promised back in the early nineties (usually followed by "and who will bring this to you? at&t") and is also a really good stab at reducing the redundant point-point traffic caused by Netflix and other "legitimate" streaming services. But it takes an application outside the law as a demonstrator. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. There was a time, for instance, when any video recording/playback set of features was first used for pr0n, and then gradually migrated to legitimate use. But I've been hoping so far in vain for legitimate services to torrent their content. (except for a few independent content creators.) I guess it makes too much sense.

Re:The funny thing is

[ichthus]

I agree. This is now my favorite way to watch Big Buck Bunny. *tee hee*

Grrrr

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare progress stand in the way of dinosaur business models!

Pigs

[fnj]

The PEOPLE DEMAND that BREIN die a horrible death.

BREIN are complicit

[wshs]

Let's not forget that BREIN pirated music for use in commercials. Pot, kettle.

Re: BREIN are complicit

[guruevi]

BREIN is a government-sponsored shake down.

They have collected on music royalties, even for songs that never signed onto a label or labels connected to them but never pay out.

It is quite literally a single man organization (1 office) that produced some anti piracy ads and manages to spend millions of euros per year.

Re: BREIN are complicit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yip, by law, BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN is the only organisation that is allowed to collect royalty payments for music as a third party.
By law, by default all music royalties are collected by BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN, if you do not register at BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN then the music royalties they collect will go to their own funds.

You can opt out of BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN by stating at the copyright line that royalties are managed by yourself (you are not allowed to use another organisation to collect royalties).

If you play your own music for a group of people and you didn't opt out, you will have to pay BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN royalties, musicians have been caught playing their own music and not handing of royalties to BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN, even though they where not registered at BUMA/STEMRA/BREIN, and so they had to pay fines on top of the royalties.

Re: BREIN are complicit

[MtHuurne]

BREIN is a government-sponsored shake down.

As far as I know, BREIN is an industry-backed group with no government sponsoring.

They have collected on music royalties, even for songs that never signed onto a label or labels connected to them but never pay out.

I think you're confusing them with Buma/Stemra, who manage music royalties. They have indeed been accused of not paying out royalties when they should.

Why not just call the entire Internet illegal?

[kheldan]

The Internet is a gigantic network devised for the sole purpose of transporting data between computers. Obviously that can be used to violate copyright laws anywhere in the world, so why not just cut to the chase and call the whole thing illegal? Once they accomplish that, then they can move on to USB flash drives and external hard drives, writeable CDs, DVDs, and Bluray discs, and then finally HDDs and SSDs, and any non-volatile semiconductor memory, since all of it can be used to copy and transport copyrighted data. In their perfect world all computers would run off EPROMs, no file storage capability, and any and all media would be streaming only. Give them enough time and they'd find a way to edit people's wetware memory so they wouldn't be allowed to learn anything copyrighted or remember copyrighted images or sounds.

All hyperbole and kidding aside, is it just me or do these BREIN fools sound like just more politicians, completely devoid of any ability to understand technical things? Their argument is like liberals trying to outlaw firearms: they make a basic assumption that 'guns are evil, therefore get rid of guns' when in reality people kill people, and eliminating guns won't really do a damn thing; someone wants to kill, they'll find a way, gun or no gun. Bittorrent has many legitimate uses. Deeming any bittorrent client 'illegal' is asinine, you'd have to deem all bittorrent clients illegal, and the entire protocol illegal, too. At that point you may as well call FTP illegal, or any chat client that allows file transfer illegal, or make file attachments to email illegal. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Never mind the fact that filesharing is never, ever going to go away, either; they're fighting a losing battle.

Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal?

[Fwipp]

Because your premise is flawed, both in your gun analogy and about this software.

Much as handguns are made for shooting people, Torrents Time is built to enable piracy. The fact that you can use your gun at the shooting range, or Torrents Time to stream Big Buck Bunny, doesn't change their intended usage.

Contrary to your belief, not all murders are premeditated, and not all killers are undetered by difficulty. Having a gun on-hand greatly increases your chance of killing someone in a fit of passion - consider the cliche of a man who comes home to find his wife cheating on him.

Similarly, piracy increases when piracy is easier (and decreases when legal options are easier, like Netflix). I remember how much work it was to teach my dad how to pirate movies back in the early 2000's - when I wasn't around, he'd often give up and go to Blockbuster. But with something like Torrents Time or Stream All The Sources, even non-technical users will choose to pirate something over a less convenient route.

While it's incorrect in the general case to blame a tool-maker for the mis-usage of that tool, Torrents Time is built to enable copyright infringement, and everyone involved knows that. Saying "oh yes, I only wrote this tool to stream Big Buck Bunny *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*" fools nobody.

BREIN is, like the MPAA & RIAA, a rather heavy-handed and odious group. But why on earth *wouldn't* you expect them to try to shut down this software? You assume they don't understand the tech - but, surprise surprise, even goons like them can differentiate between "this tool is built for piracy" and "this tool is capable of facilitating piracy." That you are unable to is your own failing.

Also, A++ edgy signature.

Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal?

[Jack Griffin]

Their argument is like liberals trying to outlaw firearms: they make a basic assumption that 'guns are evil, therefore get rid of guns' when in reality people kill people, and eliminating guns won't really do a damn thing; someone wants to kill, they'll find a way, gun or no gun.

Any argument you might have had just evaporated with this ridiculous statement.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hi...

http://www.ajpmonline.org/arti...

And before you get all uppity and start yet another gun argument, no-one is suggesting to outlaw firearms, gun regulation means allowing sensible people access to sensible weapons, just like in most other western countries that have gun regulations, and healthy gun ownership, but nowhere as many issues.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Never mind the fact that filesharing is never, ever going to go away, either; they're fighting a losing battle.

The strategy, like gun regulation, is not elimination, it is to minimise availability. By going after the low hanging fruit, it makes pirate file sharing a less common practice. So the stupid people who can't figure out technology will find it too hard, and so pay for it through legitimate channels instead (have you seen iTunes profit lately?) This strategy only has to make a 10-20% dent in the market and it is worth million of dollars. That doesn't sound that stupid to me.

Re:Why not just call the entire Internet illegal?

[Kjella]

All hyperbole and kidding aside, is it just me or do these BREIN fools sound like just more politicians, completely devoid of any ability to understand technical things? Their argument is like liberals trying to outlaw firearms: they make a basic assumption that 'guns are evil, therefore get rid of guns' when in reality people kill people, and eliminating guns won't really do a damn thing; someone wants to kill, they'll find a way, gun or no gun.

All hyperbole aside.... if that's how you feel why don't you give Daesh the nuclear launch codes? Surely they want to kill us and surely they'll find a way, so just give up now. Yes, a tool is just a tool. That doesn't mean we're going to stop trying to keep it out of the hands of bad people or find ways to make it less suitable for doing bad things. Even the US has restrictions for convicted felons and fully automatic weapons. So say you're convicted of embezzlement, you've never had any violent history in your life. Does that now mean that you won't ever in your life have a need for self defense? Hell no, but we simply don't trust you.

Now don't get me wrong I don't generally believe people are evil, but a few could be mentally ill, a few driven to madness by malice and a few could be in great distress like a break-up, getting fired and so on. If you gave everyone a gun, there will be school shootings. There will be fired employees going postal. There will be crazy ex shootings. Guns make it easier. Sure you could do it with a knife, but it's a lot less dangerous. If you want to pull this "reductio ad absurdum" then a felon could kill with a knife so since we don't take his kitchen knives away it's pointless. It's not, really it isn't.

Of course there's big problems to some people having guns and some not, but I don't see how you could get away from that. Where would you put the bar on that? Minors? Mentally challenged? Demented elderly? I think only a few Texas die hards really believe absolutely everyone should be allowed to carry a gun. I support gun restrictions the same way I support dangerous drugs being restricted to healthcare personnel, explosives to people working in demolitions and so on, if you have a legitimate need for hunting or sports that's fine. On the streets I'd rather have knives and the cops cracking down hard on gun crime. It seems to be working, your average criminal doesn't carry.

To get at least slightly back on topic with digital it's rather black and white, all or nothing, zero or one. And that's why I feel many analogies fail to make the transition, like in the debate about the iPhone cryptography. If it were a safe, they'd drill it but you can't drill your way through AES256. But this particular case is silly, it's essentially torrents in your browser. If they haven't been able to ban torrent clients, surely there's nothing wrong with this application either. It's just annoyingly convenient for copyright holders, but principally it's no different.

Thanks BREIN

[JustNiz]

I would probably have never found out about this app, but since you're coming down so hard and fast on it I figured it must be good, so I've now downloaded and installed it.

Re: Why?

[TheReaperD]

You're forgetting that these groups don't care about valid uses of technology. All they care about is whether something can disrupt their revenue stream. Most of these groups would gladly ban the internet in its current form if it was within their power.