That's the whole problem here. The people that host torrents are legally in the right, but it doesn't seem to matter because the MPAA has more laywers.
As an AC pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a hash of a movie is as "derivative" a work as the page count of a book, or the weight of a statue.
It may uniquely identify the original work, but it communicates none of the original information within that work. If a one-way hash is used, it can actually be mathematically demonstrated that the hash alone cannot be used to recover the original content.
Overruled. The legal system is not against me here. As I already said, the MPAA does not hold copyrights on the files in question, so the only possibly legitimate legal concern here is whether the MPAA is liable for falsely claiming copyright.
It's also not at all funny that people like beneficial things, and dislike detrimental things. If this surprises you... well, I'm sorry.
Why am I even replying to an AC? Because you're massively wrong, I suppose.
I'm not denying that the MPAA holds/controls the copyrights for movies that are being pirated, but the fact is that they just don't hold the copyrights to.torrent files.
They claim that they do, of course, because, without doing so, they don't technically have any grounds to prosecute torrent distribution sites for copyright infringement.
Haha -- at some points, the letter from the MPAA is just wrong. They list Columbia, Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros., etc., as the copyright owner for files such as 50_First_Dates.torrent. Take a look at page 5, linked from here.
Do they even know what a.torrent is? Someone should inform these lawyers that their clients don't, actually, own what they're claiming to own. There's probably some felony charge associated with that sort of behavior.
Correct, I did not address copyright itself. That was not the intent of that post.
What I did address were concepts that are peripheral to copyright and copyright enforcement mechanisms. Once again: it is preferable to respect only those copyrights that interfere the least with my right to use a product I purchased in any way I see fit. GPL-protected works fall into this category. DRM-protected works do not. DRM wouldn't need rants against it if the world was not brimming over with fools.
As far as my "esoteric" distinctions go, you should note that that was a somewhat separate point. As I said in the grandparent post, DRM'd 'CDs' have been sold that do not conform to the technical standard. They may behave similarly, but there is a reason that technical standards have been developed. If a music publisher chooses to not adhere to the standards, that's fine -- but the product better not carry any indication that it is technically equivalent (eg, the "CDDA" logo). At the very least, it shouldn't even be in the same rack as non-broken CDs at the store.
If music publishers are permitted to misrepresent things of this nature, I could just as soon sell you a wheel of cheese as a CD because it shares the property of being round.
Ok, you want to know why we want to selectively enfore copyrights? Because, with the GPL, nobody loses. With DRM, you may lose Fair Use rights which should be legally guaranteed to you. You also lose money, which you may have shelled out for a crap product. If someone releases a crap product under the GPL, there's no reason to complain because it's free.
This is all saying nothing of the fact that music publishers (et al) apparently have the liberty to simply lie about precisely what it is they're selling. (For example, selling music 'CDs' that don't actually conform to the RedBook standard.)
I don't have access to professional recording equipment either, but a work only needs to be re-recorded once. Once a digital copy exists, that can be distributed far and wide using the InterWeb(tm).
You're getting a little confused there. The GPL is about the abscence of control that the original author has over what happens to his released work. Anyone can do anything with it, as long as they agree to provide that same right for their GPL'd work.
DRM is about total control by the copyright owner. No one can do anything with the copyrighted work, which, in some cases, includes those things that Fair Use would otherwise permit.
So yes, grandparent was Insightful. Recent legislation concerning DRM and the "rights" of copyright holders is largely nonsense. Please ignore it.
No, I'd rather have them try to add copy protection to every A/D converter, simply because any attempt to do so would result in catastrophically embarassing failure.
Illegal is not necessarily immoral. Distribution of things like "abandonware" is definitely illegal, but anyone with a moral compass on which the needle isn't painted on just doesn't care about the legality of it.
...and none of them actually own anything. Seriously, how long did the Intangible Media Industry think they could survive by just selling "licenses" to use their products? What does that even mean? (Don't answer that; I know what it means and I just happen to know that it's crap.)
Everyone seems to be saying that "oh, it's no surprise that all these sites were taken down; they deserved it; blah blah". What wouldn't be a surprise to me is if the copyright holders simply went into economic ruin because of their totally flawed busines model.
You are aware that, as an alternative to demonstrating innocence of a crime in court, the defense may demonstrate that the law is simply unjust, right?
Right?
Slashdot Mirror
That's the whole problem here. The people that host torrents are legally in the right, but it doesn't seem to matter because the MPAA has more laywers.
As an AC pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a hash of a movie is as "derivative" a work as the page count of a book, or the weight of a statue.
It may uniquely identify the original work, but it communicates none of the original information within that work. If a one-way hash is used, it can actually be mathematically demonstrated that the hash alone cannot be used to recover the original content.
These are the reasons that copyright laws are generally broken in the first place.
Overruled. The legal system is not against me here. As I already said, the MPAA does not hold copyrights on the files in question, so the only possibly legitimate legal concern here is whether the MPAA is liable for falsely claiming copyright.
It's also not at all funny that people like beneficial things, and dislike detrimental things. If this surprises you... well, I'm sorry.
Why am I even replying to an AC? Because you're massively wrong, I suppose.
I'm not denying that the MPAA holds/controls the copyrights for movies that are being pirated, but the fact is that they just don't hold the copyrights to .torrent files.
They claim that they do, of course, because, without doing so, they don't technically have any grounds to prosecute torrent distribution sites for copyright infringement.
Haha -- at some points, the letter from the MPAA is just wrong. They list Columbia, Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros., etc., as the copyright owner for files such as 50_First_Dates.torrent. Take a look at page 5, linked from here.
.torrent is? Someone should inform these lawyers that their clients don't, actually, own what they're claiming to own. There's probably some felony charge associated with that sort of behavior.
Do they even know what a
Americans are being screwed? Are you living in some region of the country where you're not allowed to practice what religion you choose?
Because they both use the word "Ministry"? Are you looking for trouble where none really exists?
Why is allowing unchecked ignorant beliefs better for the greater good than cracking down?
With no due respect, buying things for the hell of it is way better than silly fairy tales.
Correct, I did not address copyright itself. That was not the intent of that post.
What I did address were concepts that are peripheral to copyright and copyright enforcement mechanisms. Once again: it is preferable to respect only those copyrights that interfere the least with my right to use a product I purchased in any way I see fit. GPL-protected works fall into this category. DRM-protected works do not. DRM wouldn't need rants against it if the world was not brimming over with fools.
As far as my "esoteric" distinctions go, you should note that that was a somewhat separate point. As I said in the grandparent post, DRM'd 'CDs' have been sold that do not conform to the technical standard. They may behave similarly, but there is a reason that technical standards have been developed. If a music publisher chooses to not adhere to the standards, that's fine -- but the product better not carry any indication that it is technically equivalent (eg, the "CDDA" logo). At the very least, it shouldn't even be in the same rack as non-broken CDs at the store.
If music publishers are permitted to misrepresent things of this nature, I could just as soon sell you a wheel of cheese as a CD because it shares the property of being round.
Ok, you want to know why we want to selectively enfore copyrights? Because, with the GPL, nobody loses. With DRM, you may lose Fair Use rights which should be legally guaranteed to you. You also lose money, which you may have shelled out for a crap product. If someone releases a crap product under the GPL, there's no reason to complain because it's free.
This is all saying nothing of the fact that music publishers (et al) apparently have the liberty to simply lie about precisely what it is they're selling. (For example, selling music 'CDs' that don't actually conform to the RedBook standard.)
I don't have access to professional recording equipment either, but a work only needs to be re-recorded once. Once a digital copy exists, that can be distributed far and wide using the InterWeb(tm).
You're getting a little confused there. The GPL is about the abscence of control that the original author has over what happens to his released work. Anyone can do anything with it, as long as they agree to provide that same right for their GPL'd work.
DRM is about total control by the copyright owner. No one can do anything with the copyrighted work, which, in some cases, includes those things that Fair Use would otherwise permit.
So yes, grandparent was Insightful. Recent legislation concerning DRM and the "rights" of copyright holders is largely nonsense. Please ignore it.
How 'bout that. You guessed wrong, as per usual I'm sure.
And I see you're the shiny new model of slashbot that is typified by mocking what slashbots used to say. I'm impressed!
What are you trying to say, anyway? Is a flawed business model not a legitimate concept? Would you prefer different wording?
Way to complain uselessly.
Proofs... of the existence of a god or gods?
No. No, I'm afraid there aren't.
No, I'd rather have them try to add copy protection to every A/D converter, simply because any attempt to do so would result in catastrophically embarassing failure.
Illegal is not necessarily immoral. Distribution of things like "abandonware" is definitely illegal, but anyone with a moral compass on which the needle isn't painted on just doesn't care about the legality of it.
...and none of them actually own anything. Seriously, how long did the Intangible Media Industry think they could survive by just selling "licenses" to use their products? What does that even mean? (Don't answer that; I know what it means and I just happen to know that it's crap.)
Everyone seems to be saying that "oh, it's no surprise that all these sites were taken down; they deserved it; blah blah". What wouldn't be a surprise to me is if the copyright holders simply went into economic ruin because of their totally flawed busines model.
--Colin
You are aware that, as an alternative to demonstrating innocence of a crime in court, the defense may demonstrate that the law is simply unjust, right? Right?
A compromised copy of FireFox is probably more secure than a real copy of IE, anyway. I'll take my chances, Mr. Torr.
I'm sorry, you said you had a girlfriend?
You started your post off with "Fool!", and ended with the fantastic logical progression:
I believe numbers are beautiful; therefore, God exists.
Seriously, someone show this guy the door.
--Colin
Also, nVidia's Linux support is far superior.
I think the short answer is: hydrogen gas storage methods (i.e., tanks) are better than electric power storage methods (batteries).
Batteries are heavy and stupid, but gas is light.
--Colin