Coming to a hard disk near you(BitTorrent)

[RedEarth]

Coming to a hard disk near you

You may never have heard of BitTorrent, but it made the latest Star Wars movie available six hours before its official release, it can get you 24 or the OC months before they're on TV and it accounts for a third of all internet traffic. No wonder the entertainment industry has declared it public enemy number one. By Simon Waldman

Simon Waldman
Friday June 17, 2005

Guardian

The FBI doesn't like it. The Department of Homeland Security is so concerned that it has closed down websites related to it. The Moving Picture Association of America is waging a war against it. And every day millions of people around the world use it to share music, TV programmes and movies.
The "it" is BitTorrent - a computer program that's the brainchild of the softly-spoken Bram Cohen. It is a super-smart way to share huge files over the internet, and one which, depending on whose side of the argument you listen to, is either an evil tool for those involved with copyright theft, or a work of genius set to transform the media industry as we know it.

Recent research has shown that, last year, BitTorrent was responsible for one third of all traffic on the internet. That's one third. And this despite a wave of legal activity against the peer-to-peer technology (P2P) that underpins Cohen's brainchild.

In essence, BitTorrent is just the latest in a line of programs that started with Napster and allows individuals to swap information with each other over the internet. An OECD report on digital music released this week revealed that at any one time there are as many as 10 million people exchanging files using all forms of P2P. Business Week has estimated that the total number of users could be as high as 100 million.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5217872-110837,00.html

[pimpbot]

1. It can also be used for LEGAL activities

Obviously the RIAA and MPAA have dropped the ball here. PEOPLE WANT THEIR MUSIC/MOVIES! The cat is out of the bag, and instead of trying to work with the new technology to create new markets / distribution styles, they FAUGHT FAUGHT FAUGHT. Wahh wahh we are losing money. Nevermind the crap CDs they put out. If I like one song, I want to buy ONE SONG. Anyways, as I said, there are way too many people involved in this now and its global, so GOOD LUCK LAWYERS! :)

[NorCalDem]

3. I agree

instead of embracing technology and finding new marketing stategies to take advantage of it, they're trying to uninvent the wheel. I'm sorry guys, but adapt or die! It's technological evolution, or intelligent technology design, or something like that.

[Tux]

9. Best for

Linux ISOs. I don't do illegal downloading (nothing worth downloading anyways) but it's great for Linux ISOs. Fedora took awhile but hey, I got it.

[nookiemonster]

21. Absolutely!

I bought many a crap cd because I liked one song. The age of 1 song cd(s) was brought to a halt, because in my opinion, they wanted to screw us and make us buy the ENTIRE cd. Essentially, many became nothing more than an oversized beer coaster.

Beer coaster, you ask. Hell, I just made it up.

I have many, MANY, purchased cd(s) in my collection. I guess I'm just trying to recoup. I know it doesn't make it right, but I never claimed to be a "moral highgrounder" like our hypocritical adversaries claim to be.

Ok, I feel dirty now.

:hide:

[msongs]

37. funny how criminals always rationalize their crimes and blame the

victim.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[TheWraith]

57. Yes, the "intellectual property" industry does do that constantly. NT

[fishwax]

114. Oh please

I don't download songs using p2p or bit torrent unless it's legal or approved by the artists, but it's obvious to me that the record and movie companies have dropped the ball on this.

Instead of trying to restrict technology, which has never worked and likely never will, they could have found a way to work with technology to create win-win situations. It's been a series of poor business decisions. It's not "rationalizing my crimes" to point that out.

[dissent1977]

60. Yes

Banning BitTorrent is kind of like banning VCR's or CD/DVD burners. Yes they can be used to infringe on copyrights, but they have a hell of a lot of legitimate uses as well. I am tired of people wanting to ban democratic technological innovations because they may cut into the profits of multi-billion dollar corporations. I am much more concerned about the ability to communicate and share information over the internet than I am about how many millions of dollars the CEO of AOL Time Warner is worth.

[zwielicht]

86. It is already used by such subversive organizations as NASA

http://opensource.arc.nasa.gov/software.jsp?id=13 (World Wind is one of the most interesting pieces of win/mac software out there, btw!)

Bittorrent is simply the smartest way to distribute large files to many people who want to download them the same time!

I didn't expect such bs from the Guardian...

[trogdor]

93. LEGAL activities like Podcasting.

How else am I to get my fix of the Randy Rhodes Show in the Lake Effect Zone?

[SoCalDem]

102. We used to have 45's for just that reason..cost about 69 cents

I don't know why anyone buys those expensive CD's these days..Most of the tunes sound the same :)

[Halliburton]

131. Yeah...

I downloaded a lot of legitimate stuff with it. Without, I wouldn't be able to see Ashlee Simpson lipsyncing or getting booed at the orange bowl! Great stuff I tell ya!

[wakeme2008]

2. Been there Done that

:)

Even works on a Mac... :)

[frictionlessO]

11. Have site for OSX???

Muchly appreciated if ya do!

[wakeme2008]

16. No problem

http://www.bittorrent.com/index.html

:)

[Pied Piper]

17. Here ya go!

http://www.bittorrent.com/index.html

[NNguyenMD]

45. hehe man I love you guys at DU

[Iowa]

4. I use it...

I just downloaded a Linux operating system with it. Occasionally we screw up and miss taping an episode of a favorite TV show - so we get it via BitTorrent. Works great - especially for large files.

[slay]

5. Ashcroft was on CourtTV last night trying to brainwash kids about this

Here's the scene: Ashcroft is giving some brainwashing speech called "Activate your mind" to a bunch of DC kids about how downloading stuff through P2P hurts the artists. He never mentions how the CORPORATIONS that pimp the artist's works to us get almost all of the money for themselves. Then he has them do little projects about how to stop file sharing (illegal downloading he calls it). One group does some kind of poster of a prison uniform saying that prison is where file sharers belong - Ashcroft loved that one. The whole thing was sick and screamed of NAZI style propaganda. He kept repeating "Intellectual Property Rights" and how the kids can one day have their ideas pimped out by a mega-corporation too! Yay! Check it out if you get a chance - scary stuff.

http://www.courttv.com/choices/activate_your_mind/?sect=2

[BlueStateModerate]

53. From that site...

"Intellectual Property Theft and Youths"

I hate when they use that word...

[dissent1977]

61. When they speak about the artists...

They always fail to mention that the artist only gets about 25 cents per CD sold on a GOOD recording contract. Yes, there are some very wealthy musicians out there, but most of them get their wealth through touring and merchandise sales (which are in no way affected by file sharing) not the CD sales. I would gladly send the artist their 25 cents per album, in fact I would send them significantly more. I don't see why the record label needs to be so greedy and snatch up all the money for themselves though.

[Systematic Chaos]

6. Gotta love them Swedes!!

www.thepiratebay.org

Go there and look at their pages of legal threats and responses. It's hillarious. Of course, I figure it's only a matter of time before the corporations bribe the shit out of the Swedish high court to change the copyright laws.... :(

[Kellanved]

7. ahem

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1496&date=20050526
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/02/scandinavia_p2p_clampdown/

[Endangered Specie]

64. Bhwahahahahahahahaha!!!1

that some of the funniest stuff Ive read in a while thanks! :)

[Stockholm]

105. ROFL

"As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe.
Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here.
For your information, no Swedish law is being violated."

http://static.thepiratebay.org/dreamworks_response.txt

[youspeakmylanguage]

8. A lose-lose situation for honest media consumers...

As a legitimate media user (I pay for the movies, music, and games I use), this is horrible situation for me and everyone else that plays by the rules. Those that enjoy stealing media will continue to do so unabated, so the government and big media (who are too stupid to stay one step ahead of them) step in and hinder legitimate users from copying or even consuming (listening, viewing, playing) the product they have already paid for.

I can't watch my own DVDs on my personal computer (yet) because I use Ubuntu Linux and I don't have a CSS decoder installed. According to the documentation, I'll have to download an ILLEGAL copy of it from Sweden to watch my OWN DVDs on my OWN COMPUTER! It's almost enough to make me scream!

[depakid]

10. Ya know - you just don't get it

The meager amount that corporations lose over file sharing is FAR surpassed by the increased sales generated by sampling.

There have been comprehensive economic studies that have looked at the overall effects in the music market- and they're positive- especially for newer artists who can no longer get airplay thanks to Clinton and the Republican's allowing massive radio consolidation. People don't buy CD's unless they hear some music from them first! How else are artists (like Beck in the 90's) going to get the exposure in this new age of payola?

AND- in the multi-media market- I'm afraid that you are in a miniscule minority. Who wants to watch DVD's on their computer? Not many people. I'd like to see some penetration numbers on that! .05% maybe....

It's possibly time for you to rethink how you're looking at these issues. Methinks you've been hoodwinked....

[aresef]

12. Additionally

No money is really lost from downloading. The people who download probably wouldn't have bought in the first place. If I download a movie or something, and I like it enough, I'll buy the DVD. Besides, no download (music included) can be as high-quality as the real thing.

Many people downloading TV shows shouldn't be driving companies to sue a webmaster's pants off. It should push them to release DVD's.

[Deja Q]

15. Especially, despite copy protection, returns are NOT ALLOWED! Guess what?

Buy a cd, listen to it, hate it, try to return it, they say 'no' claiming it may have been copied...

Guess what? The record label and artist made money they did not deserve. This is tantamount to STEALING.

Kettle, meet Pot.

[aresef]

33. But to be fair

Some places (I know a store near me) let you trade in CD's for store credit or cash.

[Occulus]

35. SOME places.

But try getting a game or software package from Best Buy that won't run on your PC. You agreed to the license, but you had to openthe package to get to that license, and by that time, by opening the package and trying to run the software, you've agreed to the license.

Yeah, it's pretty perverse. You can't look at the license until you open the package and try to install, which makes it too late to take back, even if you happen to disageree with the license. Return it and you get.... another copy of the SAME PRODUCT!

Oh, GOODY!

:eyes:

[aresef]

36. Yeah

But that's why you should always do research into system requirements.

[TheWraith]

55. Forget system requirements, let's talk about crappy games.

I once payed $50 for a game, sight unseen, plus another $130 for a video card to RUN the game, because I had so loved all the previous games in the series (Lucasarts' Monkey Island games). As it turns out, the game was horribly bad, and after one night I never played it again. But, no matter how disgustingly bad, buggy, and drool-inducingly slow it was (on a computer that doubled all of the system requirements), I couldn't get a refund, because they don't allow that. No other industry gets away with that--a clothing store can't say "Sorry, by touching the shirt you agreed to purchase it, and we offer no refunds." Even the Devil's Retailer, Walmart, has better return policies. So called "intellectual property" laws in this country have run rampant to the point where you might as well exist to service the IP industry.

[starroute]

78. It gets worse than that

A couple of years ago, my son bought one of the Star Wars games (probably "Knights of the Old Republic") and found it wouldn't play on his computer. He tried everything he could think of, followed all the hints he could find online, and spent extensive periods of time on the phone with tech support. Nothing worked.

The final answer he got from tech support was that it was some sort of problem with the copy protection and that he should take out both his CD and CD-R drive and mail them to Germany (!) for them to study.

At that point, he said "screw it," downloaded a cracked version, and played the game very happily.

Since then, he's been a lot warier of shelling out 50 bucks for games that he has no guarantee he'll be able to play.

[NNguyenMD]

46. I a RTS gammer myself, and most of us will buy the games we want b/c of

online playing. No one in this gaming genre buys the game for single player campaigns anymore. Its more of an extra if anything else, and unless I'm not as techinically sophisticated as I thought I was its difficult getting game copy that can be played on battlenet unless you actually buy it. If anything, bittorrent and P2P programs are great ways to try somethign you like, and if you like it alot you'll probably end up buying it anyway. I have ALL of the Family Guy episodes on DVD and my own personal stash.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

58. You are correct

Online games that use CD-keys are usually 100% unplayable unless they are legit.

[democracyindanger]

68. Get your arguments organized

BitTorrent makes downloading of huge files--meaning videos--easier. You mock the poster for having concerns about movies being illegally downloaded, and use music downloads as your evidence. Then you jump back to movies, and how "(W)ho wants to watch DVD's on their computer?"

Which is funny, because anybody who has the technical knowledge of how to download movies from the internet also knows how to burn DVDs for use in their home players.

Maybe what it's time for is for thieves to admit that they're thieves. Intellectual property thieves like to think they're some sort of hero, but in truth they're nothing more than the people who take advantage of political riots to smash and grab a TV from the local store.

[blue northern]

70. If I take a TV, no one else can use that TV

If I copy a movie, no one is deprived of viewing that movie.
your argument is faulty

[northzax]

90. can I ask, what's your opinion of sneaking into a concert

or a movie theatre? the band, or the movie, is going to play anyway, so by your sneaking in, you don't actually cost anyone anything, there is no deprived revenue, unless you would otherwise have paid the money, no one loses anything. So, counterfeiting tickets to a General Admission concert, stealing or no?

And the next time you go on vacation, can my friends and I come use your house, actually, you won't mind if I come in and take a nap in your bed in the middle of the day, right? you're not there, I'm not depriving you of the use of your house or bed. In fact, I'm going to start wearing your clothes, unless you planned to put them on today, I'm not depriving you of their use, so it's not really stealing, right?

[Occulus]

117. Still a faulty argument

because the products you are describing aren't there once the performance is concluded.

Your argument does not apply to torrents, because unless measures are taken by the host to remove the files, the files remain at the host. It's not like a concert at all, where the material is available for only a limited time, and then to only a limited number of people.

What is your opinion of a person who lives next door to an outdoor concert hall and receives free concerts by default because of that? Should that person have to pay an entrance fee, or should the concert organizers have to compensate the homeowner for disturbing their peace on a regular basis?

[Solon]

72. Have you ever seen a movie that was downloaded from one of these sites...

Using a tracker and Bittorrent? At best you have a low quality digital version of the screening of the movie, with timer and all at the bottom of the screen, or, more usually, its a video camera in a movie theater, with odd angles of the camera to wards the screen, people in the foreground moving around in the theater, etc. Hell, half the time you have no clue what is going on, its too dark, or some other problem. Also, burning it onto a DVD-R or VCD has its own problems, on most players, these might not work, on others, weird audio/visual quirks pop up.

This makes me think that one of 3 things happen when a movie is downloaded off the Internet and viewed at home. Either the person likes it, and therefore buys the DVD, they don't like it, and delete it, or they wait for the DVD release and try to get a DVD rip, without extras I might add, and hope that it is a good copy, and their player will work with quirky DVD-Rs.

Also, they are COPYRIGHT violators, not thieves, not comparable at all. If a thief shoplifted from a store, they took a physical object, and possibly prevented a legitimate customer from buying said object. This represents lost revenue, however, it has not been legitimately demonstrated, by either the MPAA or RIAA, that copying music or movies from anywhere has lead to lost revenue for them. Hell we are rehashing the old arguments against both VCR's and Cassettes that were used back then by the same industries, only now we add buzz words like MP3 and Internet, along with now Bittorent into the mix. Those old technologies didn't destroy the industries then, and these new ones won't now. I traded recorded tapes with friends back when I was 9 years old, were we just thieves then?

Another note, this is a technology, and like all technologies, it can be used in one of two ways, legitimately or not legitimately. I have bittornado on my computer, a bittorrent client, so I can download ISO's(CD/DVD ROM Images) of Linux distributions. These images are available for free by the makers of them, for download, but to save on bandwidth, which costs money, many are now having bittorent trackers available to use for those of us who like to share bandwidth.

[Occulus]

118. The first half of your post is no longer necessarily true...

There are DVD quality rips out there; in fact, I had heard there was a DVD quality download of the latest Star Wars film, and that before the film was in theaters.

Where do these DVD quality rips prior to the theatrical release come from? Who has access to prerelease copies of films, which by the way are given to them by the filmmakers?

Film critics.

The very people who are promoting the films in newspapers, on TV, and in magazines are the same people making these high quality prerelease DVD rips available. It's the only possible way this happens, as they're the only people who are given access to the materials beforehand.

The beam in the industry's eye could span an ocean.

[depakid]

76. My arguments make economic sense whereas yours

are simply laden with loaded language that evinces a gross misunderstanding of the current state of intellectual property laws (in many disciplines) and the standard industry practices- not to mention a vast over estimation of ordinary people's technical abilities.

What's more- your arguments are dated; they basically reflect the same tired old saws brought out about FM radio (people will tape HiFi) and the Sony Betamax case.

Only difference is in the technology and the tremendous consolodation (and lack of anti-trust enforcement) that has led to a strangle hold on Congress, the administrative agencies and the courts.

Absent that- bit torrent and other file sharing protocols would hardly merit mention.

[democracyindanger]

79. Your arguments are simply

pseudo-intellectual, using multisyllabic words to mask the fact that it is theft, plain and simple.

A thief is a thief is a thief. You want to claim some higher purpose? Go ahead. It's a silly argument to make, but it's your right. But at least have the honesty to admit that you're stealing.

[depakid]

81. You've been propagandized

Using simple terms like "theft" belies simple mind (or a conditioned one)- and the issues surrounding intellectual property laws are anything but simple-

I've given several reasons why the current "scheme" of locking up the free flow of information and what amounts to censoring artists (particularly newer artists) makes no sense from anyone other than the middleman's (parasite's) point of view.

Have you any specific responses to them?

[youspeakmylanguage]

88. In response to your posts...

1) Owning, consuming, and further duplicating media without compensating the copyright holder is theft when said owner specifically releases said media as a commercial product.

2) If the creator of that media wanted it to be consumed and copied without receiving compensation under a controlled distribution structure, he or she (or they) would have released the media under a less restrictive license (Creative Commons) than a common copyright.

3) You obviously don't know any artists who are trying to make a living off of their creative property, because those "newer" artists who you claim are being "censored" most likely have no desire to see their entire catalog freely distributed without compensation.

I have to agree with the other poster - you are advocating thievery, yet you can't admit that and must instead hide behind pseudo-revolutionary statements that don't hold up to scrutiny.

[realcountrymusic]

108. Bravo

I posted a longish riff on the subject in another thread, but my basic point there was that rationalizing theft as political protest makes a mockery of real political acts of conscience.

If you don't like the law, work within the law to change it. Or if you choose to violate the law as a conscientious objector, than know and be prepared to accept the legal consequences.

more at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3907578&mesg_id=3907953

RCM

[youspeakmylanguage]

110. It's ridiculous...

These are kids that should be fighting for real social causes - equal rights, marriage for all, an end to conflict in Iraq, etc. Instead they would rather sit in their rooms and download media illegally and then try to justify it as going "against the Man". It's a joke and an embarrassment.

[Occulus]

128. in response to your response

1) the prohibition upon further duplication is only exposed when the product is used; the purchaser has no ability to examine the license of a given product beforehand. The license should be presented, and agreed to, at the time of purchase, not when the purchaser opens the box or clicks the mouse. The license should be fully understood and fully agreed to, in writing, and legally binding, before the purchase is ever made. Else, a license could contain a provision, for example, that allows the content producer to confiscate personal property in compensation for any royalties not reported or not paid by the purchaser as a result of copying the content. Not that anyone would actually do exactly that, but it's only an example of what can happen. If you can't agree to the license at the time of the purchase because the license is not presented, what good is the license itself?

Without that validity of prepurchase acceptance, the license- AND its provisions to prohibit unauthorized copying (NOT the same as stealing, by the way)- is completely invalid. QED.

2) If the creator of the content did NOT want his content freely distributed, being in digital form, he or she should have the intelligence to realize that ALL digital media can be copied, and take steps to prevent this. Given that only high-level encryption prevents this, that is what should be used. Anything less exposes a severe lack of understanding of the nature of digital media itself.

3) There are more examples of artists who do exactly this than there are artists who are opposed to filesharing. It's far larger than a one-to-one ratio. Even the MPAA distributes DVDs of films prior to their release to critics. This ignores the man walking down the street who hears an entire song playing on someone's radio, and it also ignores the man living next to the open air concert hall who is NOT asked to pay a fee for hearing concerts free that others pay fifty or sixty dollars for. Given that it is his property, he can actually sit on his porch with a tape recorder and get a POOR recording of the concert itself. Would you have him pay a royalty?

It is, in the end, all about greed. Filesharing is the backlash, the digitally-realized Newtonian balance.

[youspeakmylanguage]

129. Hmmmmm...

Let's see...

1) Just because you think there may be some draconian penalty for ripping and illegally distributing copyrighted material written into a licensing agreement, you think the solution to this is a file cabinet full of individual licensing agreements stationed at a checkout line for you to peruse and sign at your leisure before purchasing software or music.

I have news for you, jack: You can safely assume that any product labeled with a copyright notice will require written authorization from the copyright holder to copy and distribute. It's that simple. It always has been and always will be.

2) Your second point is pure genius. Since there are petty criminal jackasses out there that will illegally copy digital media, no matter what, there is only one solution to protecting your intellectual property - ONLY RELEASE VINYL ALBUMS AND 8-TRACKS! Yes, folks - the days of disco are BACK! Who has boogie fever?

3) Your third point doesn't even come close to reflecting reality. The MPAA does everything it can short of banning DVD screeners altogether - it requires a digital code embedded in the picture, it requires strict tracking of DVD screeners AND it has shown it will prosecute members who break the law and distribute the screeners.

Recording a song off of the radio and distributing it is just as illegal as ripping a CD.

It is up to the artist performing to decide whether or not they want people to record and distribute their performance. If the little old man you speak of records the concert without the artist's expressed permission, then he is breaking the law as well.

You're not even grasping the basic concept that the ease to which you can break the law has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's right to break the law. Under your reasoning if someone leaves their car keys in the ignition and their doors unlocked, then stealing their car is somehow justified.

[Occulus]

133. unfortunately, you're just wrong

"I have news for you, jack: You can safely assume that any product labeled with a copyright notice will require written authorization from the copyright holder to copy and distribute. It's that simple. It always has been and always will be."

The fact that I purchase a piece of media in no way signifies that I agree with its license. Further, if that license is not presented and agreed to at the time of the purchase, the license should be invalid, since payment was made, but terms were never agreed to. An ex post facto agreement cannot bind me if I am unaware of it at the time of the purchase. A simple copyright statement ( (c) 1992 Thunder Media Inc.) does not contain any provision as to rights of use; it is only a copyright statement. There may be, for example, additional terms I, as a purchaser, am unaware of at the time of the purchase; terms the content creator has internally agreed upon without the purchaser's knowledge or participation or agreement. This is wrong.

I will reitorate: it is incumbent upon the producer of the media to safeguard it from copying if they have a mind to do so. It is NOT the responsibility of third party programmers OR THE PURCHASER to respect a license agreement they are not themselves a party to.

As to 3), those still get out, though, don't they? Perhaps the MPAA should end this practice altogether. I honestly don't have any sympathy for them. Obviously, their measures are not equal to their goals.

"Recording a song off of the radio and distributing it is just as illegal as ripping a CD."

I'm glad they made that so terribly clear in the '80s, when the people MAKING the filesharing software were kids. They lost that fight with VCRs, and they didn't even ATTEMPT the fight with tape recorders. Sorry, THAT argument has no merit whatever.

"It is up to the artist performing to decide whether or not they want people to record and distribute their performance."

Wrong. Practically speaking, it is up to the consumers of the content to do so or not do so as they wish. That is the reality, regardless of its legality. Suck it up.

"Under your reasoning if someone leaves their car keys in the ignition and their doors unlocked, then stealing their car is somehow justified."

Only if I can leave an exact, functional copy of the car in its place. Given that, they have lost nothing. Once again, you use the faulty logic of equating digital property with physical property. The two are simply not the same.

[youspeakmylanguage]

139. Hopeless...

You are still basing your arguments on complete falsehoods and fallacies - ones that I have attempted to correct numerous times. Since you show no desire to even acknowledge the facts presented here, let alone correct your own flawed assumptions, continuing this discussion is pointless. Until you admit to yourself and the world that you do not have the legal or moral right to illegally distribute someone else's intellectual property, you will probably have no desire to confront the truth.

I would suggest you study the fundamentals of American copyright and media law before you attempt to engage anyone in a debate even remotely related to this subject again.

[NashVegas]

84. What I Love About Your Attitude

Is that it's the attitude that is going to be responsible for the eventual downfall of the arts and entertainment industry.

The more the industry screams about intellectual property theft, the more it's exposed that marketing budgets set what gets mass exposure and what doesn't in the offline world - the more people are making the connection that this is an industry that's actually suppressing culture.

What will all these artists do if they have no society-controlled outlets for properly channelled self-expression? The most determined ones will find outlets that are not controlled .. and then things just might get real interesting around here.

[youspeakmylanguage]

89. What does this have to do with stealing copyrighted intellectual property?

Your position is simply fallacious.

Any artist (or anyone that creates an intellectual product of any kind) can release that product into the public domain or under a less restrictive license than a copyright. It is the choice of the artist, not you or anyone else, to decide whether or not that they want to be compensated for their work.

[northzax]

91. shhh...you'll wake up the ali babas

stop pointing out that the Artists sold their copyrights to corporations, and that the most stolen items happen to be the ones most popular for legal consumption.

No one twisted the arms of any artist to sign their copyrights away, indeed, most are ecstatic to be asked. It is, in fact, possible to make a living touring and self-releasing CDs (ask Ani DiFranco) you can get 500 CDs made for $1,000. Why don't more artists do that? oh, because the record companies provide something in exchange for copyrights? huh, interesting.

Maybe they're being exploited? some probably are, perhaps, but there is enough competition, and the practices are widely known enough that anyone who is stupid enough to sign their rights away for less than their market value is on their own. And the artists most stolen from, the big ones, say U2, you don't think they have the best lawyers money can buy looking out for them in their record deals?

For all of you who steal copyrights from larger artists, deal with the fact that they are knowledgable businessmen and women who signed deals with their eyes open. Stealing from a smaller, lesser known artist? they need your CD money, and the accompanied rankings, more than anyone.

That said, I won't buy one of the newly copyprotected CDs, not because I object to the concept, but because they aren't compatible with my chosen method of music delivery, my iPod. Same reason I don't buy cassette tapes or 8-tracks.

[youspeakmylanguage]

94. Don't understand your post or title...

...and the title REALLY needs an explanation. Ali Babbas?

Stealing intellectual property from a corporation or "rich" artist may be less harmful, but it is still stealing. That's like saying it's bad to steal from a working-class neighbor, but it's OK to steal from Wal-Mart because they are a huge corporation and your little theft is almost meaningless to their bottom line.

Stealing is stealing, brother. It still stinks no matter how you try to justify it.

[northzax]

96. that was my point

never read arabian nights, huh? oh well, I'm sure you can download it :)

I was arguing against illegal downloading, maybe that wasn't clear enough, I was trying to deflate the stupid arguement that it wasn't hurting artists, only corporations. The artists made a deal with the corporations, and the rich ones especially make some pretty damn sweet deals.

When I said I would not buy one of the copyprotected CDs, that doesn't mean I'll download it, I will not have the music until it's released in a format that I can use, if the companies want my business, and I spend about 50 bucks a month on music and another 150 on movie/concert tickets, they'll accomodate my delivery-system preferences. Or they won't, and I'll patronise those that do.

I urge everyone to onoy buy the new copyprotected CDs.

[youspeakmylanguage]

97. Your post wasn't clear...

...but I think I'm understanding your point.

I hate to tell you, but you may be waiting around to buy new CDs until they're serving you dinner through a straw. All indications point to more restrictive technology and encryption, not less. And the unwashed masses will continue to purchase their American Idol CDs unabated as long as they work on basic CD players.

"Ali Babba" is often used as a racial slur or, at the very least, as as derogatory slang. Of course you didn't mean that, but you can't use the "N" word and later claim you were making a reference to "Huckleberry Finn".

[northzax]

98. I realise that I may not buy more music

I'm fine with that. But I do think that there will be a deal reached to make the new CD's MP3 compatible, given the number of Mp3 players, especially ipods, out there, you'd not want to piss off that market.

I was using ali babas in reference to the thieves on the highway between Baghdad and Mosul, called ali babas by the arabic press. I was not aware there was a racial connotation.

[youspeakmylanguage]

99. My next portable media player purchase...

...will be for a quality player that is Ogg Vorbis-compatible. The iPod was designed to be restrictive. I admire Steve Wozniak greatly, but I will never purchase an Apple product, just as I will never purchase Microsoft software, ever again.

Ask anyone man you know of Middle-Eastern descent whether or not he would like to be called "Ali Babba". It is often used by Americans as a derogatory term for Middle-Eastern men.

[northzax]

100. of course they wouldn't

ali baba was a thief, who wants to be called a thief? Even without racial connotations, it's an insult, that was my point.

[NashVegas]

101. This Is About a Lot More Than 'Copyrighted Intellectual Property'

This is about control of distribution; this is about end users taking into their own hands, what they have access to and this is about artists, themselves, getting their work exposed without going into debt.

If you do not live within a 30-60 minute driving distance of a top market, you are severely limited in what you are exposed to in your movie theatres and on your radio.

If someone in outer ding-dong doesn't know your work exists, you aren't going to be compensated, either. You will only be compensated if whatever company is distributing your work is willing to devote a huge promotional budget to ensuring your record or movie becomes a big enough hit in the major markets that it will filter down to the smaller ones and Mister Ding-dong is exposed.

Of the working artists I've spoken to about file sharing, about .06% aren't keen on file sharing. What do the other 99.04% know that you don't? They know that they aren't going to make a dime off of their "intellectual property" if no one knows it's there and they know they're going to be in debt if their distributor puts out beaucoup dollars and it flops. Some of them know you can have a smash and still wind up to your eyeballs in debt.

Traditionally people know a product is there because the corps devote huge promotional budgets, in the millions, to making sure John Q Public gets exposed. Compensation will come, of course, after you've paid back recoupable promotional expenses, btw. Real neat how that works. Here's a notorious example: remember the Goo Goo Dolls' hit song, "Name?" The one that was all over the place and you couldn't get away from? Millions of records sold and the band didn't make a dime, thanks to recoupable expenses.

While I completely agree that it *should be* the choice of the artist whether or not their work gets distributed via file sharing, it's naive to think that free distribution is not beneficial to artists.

It is the choice of the artist, not you or anyone else, to decide whether or not that they want to be compensated for their work.

Tell that to anyone who's work is distributed, for free, to: reviewers, theatre owners, radio stations, etc., and they'll laugh in your face. If you work in the entertainment industry, your work will be distributed, for free (and in some cases, not only your work, but invitations to parties, air fare, and conventions which are conveniently charged back to your recoupable expenses) whether you like it or not, or you won't have a contract.

[youspeakmylanguage]

107. You are still missing the point!

The artists who sign major record deals should read the contract they are signing. If they don't, then they have no place to whine and cry about how their music is being distributed or how much money they're making. It's that simple.

What's even more simple is the concept of intellectual property rights. It is not up to you, the consumer, to determine the commercial value of a song or album or to determine how that media is going to be distributed. It's up to the artist or the company that has been contracted to distribute their work.

I know professional musicians too. One band I know has been approached by three different record labels and has turned down three different major contracts because they didn't like the terms of the agreements.

Another band I know is composed of former members of successful bands from decades past (80's, 90's). They have taken some of their earnings and have invested in their own recording studio and label.

Do you know how they sell records and stay afloat? It isn't because some wannabe hacker on a file sharing service is downloading their music. They sell records by touring and exposing their music themselves, town by town. By selling CDs out of their trunks, just like many successful artists before them.

Both of these bands have to be lenient when it comes to record sharing simply because so many people are stealing music that they, like a lot of other artists, have to avoid alienating people. They both have MP3 files of sample songs to download. But when someone copies, burns, and redistributes their music without compensating them, then they are losing money. Directly. Out of their pockets.

No matter how you try to justify it, it's stealing.

[NashVegas]

112. Y'all're Hammering On One Point That's a Mere Spec

Of a much larger picture.

Furthermore, losing money and not gaining money are not equal. Losing money would be if the recipient gives money to the copier that should be going to the band.

The artists who sign major record deals should read the contract they are signing. If they don't, then they have no place to whine and cry about how their music is being distributed or how much money they're making. It's that simple.

Interesting viewpoint. Kind of looks like the old, "but she was wearing a short dress!" defense.

Of course they *should,* read to the bottom line, but majority still do not, and labels count on it. You're talking about a group of people (musicians) who have enough trouble defending boundaries as it is. You get money waved in front of you, you get the promise of all the fame you desire waved in front of you, and you're treated as if Mister Label Guy really, really, likes you, and wants to be your friend.

You are upholding an ideal as if it's the reality. It is not. I'll go redundant: it is naive to think you're going to make more money by disalllowing product sampling than by allowing it.

[youspeakmylanguage]

113. try again...

Your position, which would be quite insulting to me if I were an artist, is that musicians are too stupid to decide and blinded by bling to know what's best for themselves and for their art and therefore thousands of filesharers must take it upon themselves to distribute their work for free. What a crock of absolute BS.

And comparing signing a bad record contract to a woman being raped and then "blaming the victim"? Wow, I'm speechless.

In a civilized society product sampling is controlled by the distributor of the product. You don't get to open a container of cheese at a supermarket, take a bite, and then decide whether or not you want to purchase it. BUT if the cheese distributor pays to have someone hand out free samples, you are allowed to try the cheese before you buy it.

Budweiser does the same thing. They've been handing out samples of their newest beer "Budweiser Select" in the nightclub where I work. Also, the bartender may offer a sample of a new beer to a regular customer for free. But you don't get to walk around the bar and stick your mouth on the tap to find out if you like the beer enough to order a pint.

There is no difference between stealing intellectual property yourself and paying someone else to steal it for you. The end result is the same - you have been entertained and/or enlightened by the work of someone else without compensating that person OR the company that markets and funds his/her work. It's still stealing.

Do you see a pattern here? Are you grasping how this works? You don't get to make these marketing decisions because you are not authorized nor have any right to do so. If the band or artist wants to release a sample MP3, they do so through their website or their label's FTP site. You don't get to decide for them whats sampled and what isn't, now matter how inflated your ego is from learning how to use P2P networks.

I dislike some forms of copy restrictions. But I don't steal the product - I boycott it. This is one reason I haven't purchased an iPod or any new PC games that come with anti-piracy malware embedded in the software. YOU have the right to boycott any band or label that chooses not to let you sample (sound clips, MP3's, etc) their music online.

Tell me if you've grasped this yet or if I need to break out the sock puppets and perform "Cecil Learns About Copyright Infringement".

[NashVegas]

115. Stop Putting Words In My Mouth

Your position, which would be quite insulting to me if I were an artist, is that musicians are too stupid to decide and blinded by bling to know what's best for themselves

I am saying that many, if not most, are too distracted from the business end of the industry to fully exploit it. Some have both business accumen and talent. It is rare enough that few are entirely self-managed.

And comparing signing a bad record contract to a woman being raped and then "blaming the victim"?

I did not make the comparison between signing a bad contract and being blamed as a victim. You are the one who wrote that someone who signed a bad contract had "no place to whine or cry" for signing a bad deal. My comparison was between your own words and that of one who blames the victim.

I dislike some forms of copy restrictions. But I don't steal the product - I boycott it.

That's great! That's wonderful! Bully for you! No, I'm completely serious. And, in a way, that's the original point I was making in post #84. Because even as I write this, people who dislike copy restrictions are boycotting as well, they're encouraging others to do the same, and they're encouraging others to use their wallets to support the artists who also dislike copy protection.

[youspeakmylanguage]

119. Wow, so you agree that pirating music and proprietary software is wrong?

Please, tell us!

>And comparing signing a bad record contract to a woman being raped and then "blaming the victim"?

I did not make the comparison between signing a bad contract and being blamed as a victim. You are the one who wrote that someone who signed a bad contract had "no place to whine or cry" for signing a bad deal. My comparison was between your own words and that of one who blames the victim.

You could also make the comparison that blaming an artist who didn't read the contract he signed is akin to blaming Jews for the Holocaust, but it still wouldn't be any more appropriate than comparing it to blaming a rape victim or using any other completely outrageous example. You can't wiggle your way out of that one, brother.

[NashVegas]

120. I Don't Have to Wiggle My Way Out of Anything

..

[youspeakmylanguage]

121. So comparing a bad record contract to being raped...

Interesting viewpoint. Kind of looks like the old, "but she was wearing a short dress!" defense.

This is a valid comparison? In response to the charge that anyone who signs a record contract without reading the fine print is responsible for what they end up signing away?

Nevermind, this is getting old. Peace!

[Occulus]

123. there's that incorrect logic again

"You don't get to open a container of cheese at a supermarket, take a bite, and then decide whether or not you want to purchase it. BUT if the cheese distributor pays to have someone hand out free samples, you are allowed to try the cheese before you buy it."

Can you copy a bite of cheese, so they don't lose any of their original cheese when you take a bite?

"Budweiser does the same thing. They've been handing out samples of their newest beer "Budweiser Select" in the nightclub where I work. Also, the bartender may offer a sample of a new beer to a regular customer for free. But you don't get to walk around the bar and stick your mouth on the tap to find out if you like the beer enough to order a pint."

Here again, you're making a faulty comparison, and one I see a lot. You cannot compare food, or cars, or TVs, or in fact any other form of physical property object with digital content, because unlike all other forms of property, digital content can be wholly, flawlessly, and nearly instantly copied and then used as if it were the original, all at very, very little cost. Purely digital transmission- filesharing- completely elimiates the cost of materials. There's no physical object lost when the files are transmitted.

Huge, gaping difference.

[youspeakmylanguage]

126. talk about incorrect logic...

Your point is simply fallacious and irrelevant. It doesn't matter how effortlessly or perfectly digital media can be reproduced if the media is being reproduced illegally.

Theoretically, any item can be reproduced almost flawlessly if you have the right material and equipment. In almost any part of the world you can find illegal duplications of designer clothes, accessories, and products. Some of these items are identical to their real counterparts while most are of lesser quality, just as some pirated MP3s are not of the same quality as the original WAV files released by a record company. It doesn't matter if the products are sold or given away - they were illegally produced, so distributing them in any way, shape or form is illegal as well.

The only way your argument has any weight is if you believe intellectual property has no intrinsic value and should not be sold as a commodity in itself, which is completely bogus. A monkey banging on a keyboard could produce the same number of processed words as Stephen King produces writing a novel, but which intellectual end product would a large portion of the American public want to read? Which product would the (honest portion of the) American public be willing to pay for the right to consume? Which product is protected as a commercial commodity specifically because (honest) consumers are willing to pay for it?

Try again.

[Occulus]

130. You have completely missed the point

In each and every case you cited- "designer clothes, accessories, and products"- there is one single physical object associated with the product. One cannot reproduce, without difference, a blouse, or purse, or pair of shoes. They are physical objects which require disparate materials to produce. We don't have replicators, like Star Trek. One shoelace is ONE shoelace, not potentially two, or three, or a dozen, or a hundred.

Moreover, I am not able to personally create such a copy; this takes many different pieces of machinery and skills in order to produce. By contrast, digital media is different; any form of digital media can be flawlessly copied- in any amount- and the only requirements are time and electricity. This is the fundamental difference between digital media and other products. Literally, theft is not possible; only unauthorized copying is possible, unless you actually delete the original content. That doesn't happen with filesharing; the content producer still has his full inventory, and full capability to sell to those who would pay.

It is the lack of willingness to authorize copying for noncommercial, private use that filesharing attempts to address. If a product reaches those who otherwise would not have been exposed to it, how does that harm the producer of the product? It does not; it in effect expands his market at no cost of advertising to him.

I would never have become interested in computer animation, for example, if a friend had not had in his posession an unauthorized copy of Maya. Since then, Alias|Wavefront has released the FREE Maya Personal Learning Edition, which is what I now use exclusively.

They learned, BECAUSE they got burned early on. However, they recognized the potential market the unauthorized distribution of their product represented, and now there is a vast learning market available to EVERYONE, because of the interest in their product exposed by the unauthorized duplication and distribution of that same product. The public domain won, and it won because of software pircay.

Good on the public domain. Better still that the presence of an unauthorized version of their software resulted in an authorized, free version. Everybody won.

(You can't tell me they didn't make Maya PLE in response to the piracy of Maya itself. It's a POPULAR $7K piece of software. While still illicitly available on the filesharing networks, many, including myself, use the free version instead of the pirated full version. <The illicit version of Maya Unlimited contains far, far more capability than any person trying to get the illicit version would need or have the hardware to take advantage of- so much so, it's an impediment to its use.> The irony is, I can thank software pirates for the very existence of the free version. I firmly believe it would not exist without the initial piracy of Maya Unlimited and other similar products in the first place.)

Think of the man walking down the street who pauses for a bus. While waiting, he hears three songs on the local radio station. He is NOT a resident of the market that station serves, does NOT patronize any of that market's advertisers, and in fact wishes to leave that station's broadcast area, for whatever reason.

The royalties paid were never intended for him to enjoy the fruits of. Does he owe a royalty to those content producers because he has no contact with the financial system supporting the music played on that station?

Why not?

Do, then, persons who ARE within the broadcast are have the right to record and play back for friends that broadcast? Why? Royalties paid were never intended for that broadcast to be recorded and then replayed for persons who missed the broadcast, yet nowhere are we seeing a push against that. Why, if royalties are so vastly important?

I buy a piece of software. It is a game, with an internal soundtrack. I wish to disable the internal soundtrack and play my ligitimately purchased CDs while playing the game instead, but in order to do so, I must get hold of a "cracked" executable that allows me to play the game without the original CD. Under the DMCA, this is illegal, even though I'm doing it for my own personal pleasure.

There is a movie I have the TV broadcast of. It contains commercials, since I recorded it with a VCR back in 1983 (!). I download the DVD rip of the content. Am I illegal, even though the content is demonstrably identical to the broadcast I already have?

The point here is, there can be seen to exist a legitimate use for even illegitimate content on the filesharing networks. Our system of copyright is FAR too intrusive and constrictive, and the filesharing networks are one response to this.

The dEA will not even agree to debate marijuana legalization. It simply refuses to address the subject. Are those who are in charge of the ability to alter copyright legislation equally nonreceptive? If they are, we MUST tolerate the existence of filesharing networks, for without the existence of legislators who are willing to consider change in copyright law, there can be no other recourse for those who believe the law is wrong.

If our legislators refuse to acknowledge that a law may be wrong, we owe it to ourselves as a public, as a people, to defy them until we can unelect them. In such an unreceptive climate, we can do nothing else unless the market responds- as it did, in that one case, with Maya.

(There are other examples. ALL of the 'big four' major 3D rendering packages- 3D Studio, Maya, Lightwave, and Softimage XSI- have free versions. This is a direct response, and a good one, to the fact that their software is pirated on a regular basis.

Those free packages are directed toward those who would not otherwise be exposed to the software, and their market has only increased as a result.)

Where, exactly, do we draw the line? Why is it okay to invade my home and tell me I 'cannot do' with X media because I don't have a license to do so (even when any license at all was hidden from me at the time of the purchase)? Who in bloody hell do content producers think they are, to think they can tell me what I may or may not do with my posessions in my own home, for which I have legitimately paid?

The claiming of ANY "rights" after the purchase by a content distributor, quite frankly, makes my blood boil. They should have NO right- no, none whatever- to prohibit ANY use of the product after the purchase has been made- INCLUDING so-called "unauthorized" copying. It shouldn't even be their choice- that should be the risk they themselves assume, AND agree to, by marketing their product.

NO CORPORATION OR INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL ME WHAT I MAY OR MAY NOT DO WITH PROPERTY I HAVE PURCHASED. MOREOVER, THE ACTUAL MUSIC OR SOFTWARE OR MOVIE ON THE MEDIA SHOULD BECOME MY PROPERTY, TO DO WITH AS I PLEASE, AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE.

Why? Because the license forbidding exactly those things was only given to me AFTER the purchase was made. Sorry, pal. You took my money, and didn't expose conditions of use until AFTER you took my money. No content producer should EVER have the right to dictate legal or illegal use after the purchase has been made without FIRST exposing what they consider to be legal and illegal use.

[northzax]

109. I agree, you're missing the point

While I completely agree that it *should be* the choice of the artist whether or not their work gets distributed via file sharing, it's naive to think that free distribution is not beneficial to artists.

If an artist wants to make his or her work avaliable for free, he or she should give it away. that doesn't mean sign a record contract and sell the rights, then give them away, that means simply give it away. How many people does it take to make a CD these days? minimum of the band, a producer, the guy who maintains the studio, maybe a songwriter, or a composer, whatever. If the artist gives it away after letting all those people work, he's stealing from them.

if the record company that bought the rights to the song wants to give it away free, it can. but the artist no longer owns that version, or at least doesn't own the distribution rights.

[Occulus]

124. By the same token, however,

content producers should not presume to retain 'control' over the media once it has been legitimately purchased. That they try is an arrogant intrusion into my home.

My rights of use are not stated to me prior to the purchase, they are dictated to me after the purchase. I have no choice but to accept the terms; there's no 'voluntary' about it. Acceptance is assumed, even when it is not freely given.

"Opening this package constitutes agreement with the software license contained therein." I've read that before, many many times. It's a catch-22.

To me, this calls into legal question all copyright licenses. Terms vary from license to license; even if some practices are common, it's impossible to assume that is the case until one actually reads the thing. Most of the time, a purchase must be made before the license is exposed to the purchaser. All too often, once the purchaser actually uses the media enough to get to the license, it's already in effect by default, and also by default has been accepted by the purchaser. Trying to return the media is met with a "you accepted the license and therefore cannot return the product", or with a return policy that forbids any compensation but another copy of the same product.

Explain to me how this conduct protects anybody.

[youspeakmylanguage]

127. You were making a valid point until...

I agree with you. Once you have purchased intellectual property you should have the right to produce copies for your own personal use, for use on multiple personal platforms (making a copy of a music CD for your car). Then we get to this paragraph:

To me, this calls into legal question all copyright licenses. Terms vary from license to license; even if some practices are common, it's impossible to assume that is the case until one actually reads the thing. Most of the time, a purchase must be made before the license is exposed to the purchaser. All too often, once the purchaser actually uses the media enough to get to the license, it's already in effect by default, and also by default has been accepted by the purchaser. Trying to return the media is met with a "you accepted the license and therefore cannot return the product", or with a return policy that forbids any compensation but another copy of the same product.

I've never been told nor read in a software license that it is the producer of the software that dictates the return policy. The retailer imposes the policies that dictate whether or not an opened product can be returned. If you disagree with the retailer's return policy you should take your business elsewhere. It doesn't give you the right to pirate the media just because you're angry with the retailer or you feel that since you might not be able to return a product you have the right to steal it.

I've never done this myself, but I would assume that you can download or request a copy of a software license from the distributor before purchasing a product from a retailer. Also, most respectable retailers post their return policies prominently on their store walls and on their receipts.

[Occulus]

132. Fine, but the problem is

"I've never been told nor read in a software license that it is the producer of the software that dictates the return policy. The retailer imposes the policies that dictate whether or not an opened product can be returned. If you disagree with the retailer's return policy you should take your business elsewhere. It doesn't give you the right to pirate the media just because you're angry with the retailer or you feel that since you might not be able to return a product you have the right to steal it."

It's not the retailer my ire is directed toward. They're only trying to stop people from buying a CD, copying it, and then returning it. Fine, THAT'S and illegitimate use. BUT-

suppose I buy a piece of software that has protection which my computer cannot handle. Further suppose there is a "crack" available that removes that copy protection.

If I use the crack, I'm guilty of violating the DMCA, despite the fact that I have legally purchased the product. This is also in spite of the fact that I MUST use the crack in order to play the game as advertised.

Now suppose I discovered that and wanted to return it to the retailer. I can't, because not only does the retailer not accept opened software for return, but in fact I have already agreed to the software license by checking the box that says "I have read and agreed to the software license included herein." HOWEVER, the software itself does not work properly, regardless of whether I actually agreed to the license or not in the first place. BUT, because I have already accepted the license, I can only exchange the software for an identical copy of the software. Idiocy.

The software licenses are not apparent to someone shopping at BEst Buy or some such; they are only apparent AFTER the person has already paid for the license itself, and in spite of the fact that the purchaser has not even had the opportunity to see the license. Simply posting it on the web is not enough to satisfy the legal requirements; the license should be available to the purchaser before any transaction is completed.

For that reason, I consider software and music "licenses" invalid. If it isn't posted, accepted, agreed to, and resolved before the purchase, then the license was paid for without being agreed to, which makes any agreement- or terms of agreement- in my opinion irrelevant and invalid because payment has already been made and the purchaser is thereby entitled to the use of the product, licensed or no.

By that reasoning, end-user software licenses and agreements are logically bogus. You cannot purchase a license you do not accept; you cannot accept a license you did not purchase.

By the way: I generally ignore software licenses as unenforcable and patently nonbinding in the first place.

[youspeakmylanguage]

140. ...

This is my last post...

[realcountrymusic]

111. we're having two different arguments

Inarguably, the technology (BitTorrents) exists and has legitimate uses. The fact is that the majority of people using it (like other file sharing technologies) are using it to illegally defraud artists and companies that DO "choose" to be compensated for their work. The solution is to enforce the laws that exist without suppressing useful innovations (I wonder whether the technology used in BitTorrent is patented or licensed?) and work to change laws that we don't like through the legal process.

But it is absurd to consider the massive use of file sharing to enable the theft of intellectual property as conscious political action in defense of a liberal ideal of freedom of expression or common cultural right.

Anyone who holds that the owners of stolen intellectual property have no right to legal recourse directed specifically at the use of particular technologies for which it can be shown that the dominant use is the theft of that property must, to be consistent, oppose gun control as an approach to reducing gun violence, since guns have legitimate uses. I assume you also would oppose the rights of cities to sue gun manufacturers for the costs guns entail for those cities. And to be a little extreme, why should there be restrictions on the purchase of chemicals biological agents or particular encryption technologies?

In theory the technology and its uses are separable. In practice, common sense tells you they are entwined. This makes it all the more imperative for those of us who believe in rational progress enabled by technology to use technology in legal and responsible ways. Every time you download copyrighted material illegally, you help impede the future of that technology. Think about it.

If we don't like intellectual property law, a legal mechanism exists to contest it, and a legal doctrine ("fair use") exists to test its constraints. Either one believes in the rule of law or one espouses anarchy and ends justifying means. I'd save my radical fervor for something much more important, like genocide, the atrocities we are committing in Iraq with perfectly useful technologies, and the freedom of information from *political* restriction which is the dominant issue of our day. Having all the episodes of The OC on your hard drive is not radical. It's probably just theft.

RCM

[Occulus]

134. lol

"Is that it's the attitude that is going to be responsible for the eventual downfall of the arts and entertainment industry. "

Isn't that the same argument that was made about the advent of:

+radio
+television
+records
+cassette tapes
+VCR tapes
+mp3s

And STILL, the media industry records record profits in all spheres. It's simply amazing how much they bitch about new technology, isn't it?

[Deja Q]

14. In today's market, consumers would lose if none of them downloaded...

Anti-piracy flags and other measures, they want to nix "fair use" entirely. The DMCA itself was a HUGE step in paving the road in that direction.

This problem will only get worse, especially as the 'supply' side turns more and more fascist.

Lower prices and better availability will nix the actual problems, however. But they want power and profits and control. And you and I can be well behaved consumers and buy all the doo-dah-day, it won't make a difference to them.

[depakid]

20. Don't get me started on fair use

The abuses in intellectual property laws are rampant and cross many fields.

Among the worst are the academic publishing PARASITES. The people who write those articles (like many musicians) don't get paid squat- and because of the academic publishers' restrictions- and absurd pricing- their work doesn't get disseminated and cited like it should (which is why the authors write it in the first place).

Everyone suffers- students, profs, universities, society- everyone except a few asshole executives at the academic publishing houses.

The music business isn't all that different- for MOST artists....

[Deja Q]

42. Bingo. The middlemen marketers (MPAA, RIAA, et al) are the true problem.

And many IP laws are in of themselves abuses too.

[Occulus]

135. YES!! Exactly, and

those same people are responsible for the equating of a mouse click to the acceptace of a license, and so on.

They need to present the license, and we need to agree to it, AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE. Otherwise, I just don't see how a license can be considered valid.

[Henny Penny]

22. I have used it to download many videos that I could have recorded

off the telly for free!! Mostly educational stuff that they just don't bother to release as a dvd.

But, the reason the authorities are so concerned about this technology is this..... Suppose I make a documentary called "What really happened in Fallujah!", or something equally "controversial". This program is not subject to the kind of controls that MSM documentaries are. Suddenly lots of people all over the globe have access to information that the government wanted hidden or controlled.

I use Bitlord myself and recommend it to any one interested in broadening their horizons. Its not all about the latest Hollywood movie, its about much much more.

[VegasWolf]

48. Agree totally, I use the program "ABC" as my client. Works great and

supports mutlple down/up loads.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

56. Oh really it is?

Do you know the story with DVDs?

The SAME group of companies wanted to own the firmware for EVERY dvd drive in the world, own the encryption, own the movie, own the actual DVDs (just "license" them to you), AND own the software that plays them.

That's called a MONOPOLY friend. In fact, if DVD encryption had not been broken so early NO ONE would be making DVDs other than the big entertainment companies.

"because I use Ubuntu Linux and I don't have a CSS decoder installed"

This is not because of piracy. It's the result of a failed attempt at absolute media consolidation and monopoly. You should be glad DVD encryption was broken - or the software you needed to buy would be available from one or two companies for $500.

ALL types of copy protection are generally cracked within 6 hours. They are not developed for those with tech skills - they are developed to keep end users eating out of the hand of a big corporation.

Interesting fact - MOST of the hardware used to pirate media is actually MADE by the companies bitching about the piracy.

Next in line they have hardware digital rights management planned for CPUs and system boards. You know what that means? You can't do anything on your computer except what a company WANTS you to do. They are already developed and pending release. These SOBs are tough to crack, and will seriously limit what people can do with their systems.

[Solon]

74. As a favor to you...

Click and enjoy, the DeCSS source code:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/Poosheebla-dvd.html

Or do this:

Take this prime number:

4856507896573978293098418946942861377074420873513579240196520736 6869851340104723744696879743992611751097377770102744752804905883 1384037549709987909653955227011712157025974666993240226834596619 6060348517424977358468518855674570257125474999648219418465571008 4119086259716947970799152004866709975923596061320725973797993618 8606316914473588300245336972781813914797955513399949394882899846 9178361001825978901031601961835034344895687053845208538045842415 6548248893338047475871128339598968522325446084089711197712769412 0795862440547161321005006459820176961771809478113622002723448272 2493232595472346880029277764979061481298404283457201463489685471 6908235473783566197218622496943162271666393905543024156473292485 5248991225739466548627140482117138124388217717602984125524464744 5055834628144883356319027253195904392838737640739168912579240550 1562088978716337599910788708490815909754801928576845198859630532 3823490558092032999603234471140776019847163531161713078576084862 2363702835701049612595681846785965333100770179916146744725492728 3348691600064758591746278121269007351830924153010630289329566584 3662000800476778967984382090797619859493646309380586336721469695 9750279687712057249966669805614533820741203159337703099491527469 1835659376210222006812679827344576093802030447912277498091795593 8387121000588766689258448700470772552497060444652127130404321182 610103591186476662963858495087448497373476861420880529443

Write it in Hexadecimal, then gunzip and boom, you have the source code in hand. BTW, this is the first example of an illegal number I have ever seen, wonder if they'll ban pi next, as both CD's and DVD's use that, they are circular disks after all.

Source for this one, the BBC!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A642999

[GHOSTDANCER]

103. Beautifully done, mate.

Next thing the neocons will be demonizing is places like these, forums, intellectual gathering hot-spots that don't subscribe to their point of view or affect the pocket books of these very law-makers and/or their wealthy friends.

[Occulus]

125. if you liked that, you'll LOVE this

The DeCSS code, in haiku form. This would be the first illegal POEM.

(Yes, it's ALL a set of true haiku. It's also the first haiku that actually DOES something.)

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/decss-haiku.txt

Now, realcountrymusic, would you wish to prohibit this as well?

Hello, that nasty old First Amendment that protects things like poetry!

edited: here's a snip from near the beginning:

"Now help me, Muse, for
I wish to tell a piece of
controversial math,

for which the lawyers
of DVD CCA
don't forbear to sue:

that they alone should
know or have the right to teach
these skills and these rules.

(Do they understand
the content, or is it just
the effects they see?)

And all mathematics
is full of stories (just read
Eric Temple Bell);

and CSS is
no exception to this rule.
Sing, Muse, decryption

once secret, as all
knowledge, once unknown: how to
decrypt DVDs.

Arrays' elements
start with zero and count up
from there, don't forget!

Integers are four
bytes long, or thirty-two bits,
which is the same thing.

To decode these discs,
you need a master key, as
hardware vendors get.

(This is a "player
key" and some folks other than
vendors know them now.

If they didn't, there
is also a way not to
need one, to start off.)

You'll read a "disk key"
from the disc, and decrypt it
with that player key.

You'll read a "title
key" for the video file
that you want to play.

With the disk key, you
can decrypt the title key;
that decrypts the show."

[Deja Q]

13. While movies are not, TV is free.

Consumers pay for it via the advertisements for the products sold during those periods.

When I bought my 5LBs of Hidden Valley, a lot of that money went to go pay for whatever stupid show was on the air. Indirectly, but we the consumers pay for it whether we want to or not.

So damn right tv should be free for downloads.

As for movies, hell, they're not good in the first place. And I can't blame downloaders as the prices to get in are horrendous, followed up with the price for popcorn and a coke, and then you get 7 minutes of credit card and car commercials that make you want to scream at the bloody screen!!

I'm apathetic to the situation; both sides are just as wrong when it comes to the moral point. But since when does the acquisition of money put morals into consideration? I'll side with the downloaders this time. Not until the suppliers grow up and stop becoming little wind-up fascists. (I buy the shows I like on DVD direct...)

Make this stuff available, and at real prices, and people will buy MORE and ditch the shady routes. Nothing illegal or immoral about that and you'd only make MORE money in the long run because you just expanded your customer base BIG TIME.

[Dogmudgeon]

18. They won't be happy until they ban public libraries

Literary piracy! Where is the outrage!

--p!

[NuttyFluffers]

28. and that'll be the day this literary nerd goes to war

wearing glasses and carrying 40+ lbs of books into battle... and behind me a legion of desperate housewives furious from being deprived of their romance novels.

[TheWraith]

47. No kidding, they really do want to.

A few years ago, the head of the American Association of Publishers (publishing industry equivalent to the MPAA/RIAA) gave a big speech talking about how unfair it was that publishers only got paid once for a copy of a book in a library, even though so many people got to read it. She said that it amounted to theft, and that the publishers should be able to charge for every time a book was read. I swear, I am not making a joke. It's not a one time thing, either, they've been making noise about this for years.

For these people, their immense greed is comingled with their lust for power--they really do want to control everything that you're allowed to see, hear, and read, for the sake of their own profit.

[VegasWolf]

49. The FBI doesn't mind libraries as long as the can get access to who

borrows what work.

[MetaTrope]

19. One question about BitTorrent...

I've never used it because the idea of having my network and hard disk open to the Internet makes my flesh crawl. How secure is it exactly?

[psychopomp]

25. Fear not

I have never had a problem and I don't think security is an issue at this point.

[high density]

27. The security of it concerns me a little as well

I used the Azureus BitTorrent client a few times and I was quite impressed with it, but I don't think I'd leave going 24/7 without supervision. Azureus only requires one port to be opened for the BitTorrent traffic to flow, so the network security aspect seems alright. For hard drive security we're pretty much at the mercy of the the client. I figure that the guys who wrote the software are also using it, so it's probably safe to assume that they're honest people and have done their best to keep errors out of the software. Given that it's open source, patches for any possible security bugs probably wouldn't take long to be made public. I'd prefer to transfer files via HTTP or FTP, but if BitTorrent is the only option I wouldn't be afraid to use it.

Do keep in mind that some ISPs may get bitchy if you use a lot of bandwidth.

[Sgent]

29. One of the things about Azerus

and some others is that its open source. So anyone (with knowledge of java) can examine it and check on the security if it worries 'em. That's a lot more eyes looking at the software for legitmate bugs, and also to keep the writers from slipping in crap.

[realcountrymusic]

30. How trusting you are

If you think P2P and Torrents are hacker-safe, you're loony. The poster who worried about opening a worldwide door to his/her hard drive has it right.

The very nature of p2p networking, plus the fact that so many use it for illegal sharing, makes it one of the great security nightmares of any network administrator. And I am sorry, but the amount of network bandwidth used by people downloading "the OC" (whatever that is) and crap music is choking many a network.

This is aside from the debate over sharing and IP law, about which I have mixed feelings as a former pro songwriter and musician. I hear a lot of justification for theft from people who should know better, here included. Not everyone trying to make a living off their art is a mega-rich corporate hack.

If you think all art and information should be free, then offer whatever you do for a living up to the world for free as well. Let me download your legal services, computer skills, whatever.

[Sgent]

31. I use bit-torrent all the time

and have never used it without explicit permission from the IP owner. An open port is only as dangerous as the software that responds to it, and I'd feel more comfotable about having azerus on that port than say sendmail.

[realcountrymusic]

40. and what do you suppose

might be contained in the files you download?

A regular occurrence in my neck of the woods: people download media files and let a nasty bit of spyware or a virus into their machine.

I am simply amazed at the obtuse, juvenile tone of this discussion. I'm going to copy the template and all the content of DU, except make it a right wing parody site and call it DemocraticDumpingGround, post it on the web, and when the owners of DU (note the copyrights all over the site) start howling, and those of you whose posts I steal start howling, I'm going to point back to this thread and say "you said all information should be free, and all use is fair use."

Without intellectual property protection, our present society would come to a halt. There would be no more inventors, scientists, or artists worthy of the name. Bank on it.

Between this and the idiocy happening on certain other threads of late, I'm about to kiss DU goodbye. Conversation used to be a lot more intelligent here. Or maybe it's because I've discovered Metafilter, where people seem to be at least a bit educated.

Snarl.

RCM

[TheWraith]

50. It's perfectly safe if you're not clueless.

Checking your email is a lot more dangerous than connecting to a P2P network. Viruses on P2P rely on human stupidity to be spread, while most email malware exploits holes in MS Outlook.

[Sgent]

59. Ever heard of SHA?

I thought that 500mb file I downloaded from the feds was gonna be a problem, but guess what, your showing you have never used bittorrent. IT'S NOT LIKE OTHER P2P Programs.

Lets see, if CMS has a hash value on posted in their .torrent file, then the chances of it being altered are almost none.

Even with the recent "cracking" of SHA, its not an issue, and I'm getting the hash value from a trusted source (a government website in thsi case), who originated the file.

Just incase you didn't know, bittorrent when you upload a file creates a hash value for a file (or group of them), then writes that into a file. You download that hash file, and the peers upload pieces to you. When you reassemble, if the hashs don't match, it won't assemble. If the .torrent comes from a trusted source, your assured of the integrity of the file.

[Joacheme Misrahe]

62. Only SHA-1 has been cracked

[realcountrymusic]

77. Oh great

So it's easier to steal work created by others trying to make a living. With impunity.

So much rationalization of theft. If you don't like the law, work to change it. Just because banks rip off customers doesn't mean you can walk into them with a gun and take their (customers') money, or does it?

If so, remind me again why I want to make political common cause with people who think that . . .



RCM

[Occulus]

122. Who mentioned stealing in that post?

The poster mentioned a "trusted source". To me, that says someplace like Fedora, Mandrake, or in this case, the government itself.

You know, there are a lot of people who don't realize that filesharing software is often used legitimately by businesses to distribute their content. Any measures to stop illegitimate content, however, would directly affect legitimate content as well, since it's all flowing over the same network. Packet-sniffing every single file, or .par, or .torrent, or any of the myriad other transmission methods and file types out there to weed out the illegitimate content is simply impossible.

In the case of filesharing and downloading, "trusted source" means "known and official"- on both ends. Thus, permission was given.

[VegasWolf]

51. Yes, or Windows Messenger! nt

[Occulus]

34. That's precisely what I do.

All the music I write is free for public consumption. I don't expect to make anything off it, and in fact do not WANT to make money off it. I don't write for my own pleasure; I write for the pleasure of others.

All art and information should be free... and mine is.

[realcountrymusic]

39. So you say

So what do you do for a living, and will you do it for free for me?

You are basically saying art shouldn't exist, or at least professional artists shouldn't exist.

I rather take that personally. An excess of ignorance.

RCM

[Occulus]

41. There's a copyleft on the bottoms of all my scores.

But I bet you have a copyright.

I'm detecting some resentment here. The interesting part is, you're jumping on me for writing and giving it away freely, and at the same time demanding "your due".

Very, very odd stance to take, that.

[VegasWolf]

52. I write copyleft software also. I'm a big fan. nt

[realcountrymusic]

75. Pshaw

First, I doubt very much you make a living from writing music or recording it (as I have). Your "copyleft" is an untested and likely close-to-useless protection from the many ways you might get ripped off, so I hope it happens someday and you get to find out.

I am not jumping on you for giving away anything. Feel free to give it away, of course. The existing intellectual property laws do not prohibit that.

The point is that you and others here are blithely saying that artists of all sorts (writers? film makers? photographers?) should not be able to own their creative work, that it should all be "free." In a market economy with professionalized artistic and intellectual sectors, that's absurd.

And I repeat. Whatever you do for a living, when you start giving it away for free give me a shout and I'll be sure to take some of that.

Just plain ignorance. Damn right I'm resentful. I spent my life developing my artistic and intellectual skills so I could make a living at it and now you want to declare my vocation obsolete because it's become easy to steal my work. If I weren't so polite I'd tell you to go Cheney yourself.

RCM

[Occulus]

80. You appear to be very ignorant of the system...

...for someone who purports to have made a living on content.

"First, I doubt very much you make a living from writing music or recording it (as I have). Your "copyleft" is an untested and likely close-to-useless protection from the many ways you might get ripped off, so I hope it happens someday and you get to find out."

You simply do NOT understand the copyleft at all. Which is why you don't understand any of the arguments on this thread.

The copyleft agreements specifically provide for derivative works, free distribution of content, and many other things antithetical to the system you are comfortable with. Getting "ripped off" happens under your system, not mine. Under the copyleft, it's virtually impossible to get "ripped off" because the content creator has already given permission to freely distribute and create derivative works from the original content. Under a copyleft, someone could remix your songs and sell them and, as you had already given them permission to freely do so, you have agreed that they may do so, and accept that they may make money- even more money than yourself- by doing so. By definition, you cannot be "ripped off".

Try reading a copyleft sometime. It spells itself out fairly well.

"The point is that you and others here are blithely saying that artists of all sorts (writers? film makers? photographers?) should not be able to own their creative work, that it should all be "free." In a market economy with professionalized artistic and intellectual sectors, that's absurd."

Your copyrights are limited by the Constitution, only in the sense that the Constitution states that a limit exists. I think a decade is more than enough time for you to make money. I do NOT agree with "life of the author plus x years". Your copyright should expire and your works should enter the public domain in our lifetimes. None of that means you cannot still make money off the works; only that others may then do so as well. If you don't like that, amend the Constitution so copyrights never expire.

Much of the "illegal" downloading is sheer frustration at the entire copyright system; works that should be public domain aren't. We know these works will never be "freed" to the public as the Constitution requires, so we simply ignore the rules that allow that to happen. If you're going to constantly extend copyrights so works never enter the public domain, you should expect your works to be copied and shared, if you please... and even if you don't.

"And I repeat. Whatever you do for a living, when you start giving it away for free give me a shout and I'll be sure to take some of that."

You've never seen the Bearshare homepage? GADS!!! You've NEVER heard of open source software? JESUS CHRIST!!

The people at Fedora, Mandrake, and many, many other software developers do exactly that, and somehow still manage to make a buck. Imagine that. And they let people give it away, for free. Which blows your whole argument right to pieces.

Are you being intentionally obtuse about this?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northzax]

92. copyleft will never hold up in court

I'm afraid. Among other things, you could never show damages for infringment.

[Occulus]

116. The point I was trying to make is

there would be no damages possible, since every copyleft (and specifically, the GNU Public License, or GPL) I've ever read specifically provides that the user may, at their option, copy, distribute, modify, remove, add to, or in other ways modify the original content of the media (in this case, linux distros and other open-source software covered by the GPL or another open-source 'copyleft'). The licenses also have always provided that the user may actually sell their modifications, provided the license contained in the original work- the 'copyleft'- is also present in the modified distribution of the software.

Here's some information about the GNU license:

http://linux.about.com/library/glossary/bldef_gpl.htm

"Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

(emphasis mine- that's one very important point: the license itself may not be changed.)

Preamble

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."

There's much, much more at the link. The license is definitely worth reading. UIt's almost completely opposite the licenses of commercial software (such as Micro$oft Window$), which seek to revoke as many of your rights as they possibly may.

[bpilgrim]

38. "the amount of network bandwidth used by people downloading" points to

a need that the markets would fill if they were smart... south Korea already has more than twice the bandwidth allocated to the end user than we got and are planning to expand the gap by a factor of 10.

everyone on the INTERNET is PAYING for it's services which includes all the digital media on it in many folks opinion. corps are gonna have to build a better mouse trap' if they want to CAPITALIZE on this extraordinary opportunity.

:hi:

peace

[Endangered Specie]

65. Its probably safer than most other P2P programs...

The most dangerous part is using IExplorer (to download the torrents)!

If your really worried you probably shouldnt do it (though, if you are that worried, Id recommend not signing onto the internet at all, technically speaking, your network/hard drive is/can be open to the world just by being online).

[blue northern]

71. Relax

The only file available in a torrent download is the torrent.
In other words, if your downloading a cake recipe, for example, the only file available to other torrent downloaders at that time is whatever portion of the cake recipe you have downloaded so far.
Once the recipe is finished downloading on your pc, that recipe is only available to others for as long as you have a particular bit torrent open.
Once you close it, other users cannot access it on your pc.

[w13rd0]

23. Some of my most popular torrents...

...are my Public Domain political archives. Every day, I do quite a bit of traffic in saved news pages from the run-up to war and surrounding the 2000 and 2004 elections, recordings of documentaries from that Canadian station and BBC and whomever, images, archived radio shows, speeches, the various primary and general election debates. I'm sure that doesn't thrill the powers that be.

[pimpbot]

24. Funny, I didn't watch some TV shows until I D/Led the rips

One show I had no clue about. I dl'ed one of the rips and watched it. OOoooh a decent show I might want to watch. But, what was I to do? They were already 5 episodes into the season. So I downloaded the 5 episodes, and watched them. Then, I watched the rest on TV. Had I never downloaded the first 5, I would have NEVER watched the rest, and never watched the commericals that went along with the rest of the episodes.

Sadly, about a day after I dl'd the 5 episodes, the FBI and DHS shut down the best TV torrent site there was. First off, what the FUCK is DHS doing shutting down websites and "questionable" legal downloading of broadcast TV shows??? Aren't they supposed to be looking for terrorists? Osama? Is he distributing torrents?

Secondly, its a losing battle. They might be able to get to all USA based torrent trackers (questionable legality). Possibly the swedish ones, and any others in Europe. But.. oh wait. Theres china, and all of asia. You could just buy a copy of your favorite blockbuster movie in China off the street for $5. They certainly dont care if some chinese guy is distributing USA copywrited material. I guess this is where the BushCo world domination comes into play.

I guess my whole point is, these people do need to make money somehow. When they release a product (say star wars 3), they make MILLIONS. MPAA claims that 80,000 downloaded the movie. Lets say all 80,000 bought tickets @ $8 a ticket. Thats $160,000. Oh snap, SW3 grossed like $150 MILLION the first WEEKEND. Thats 0.1% of the profits. We know all 80,000 wouldnt have gone and seen the movie either, so thats a worst case senario. Same with music CDs. The companies blow the numbers out of proportion to win support of our government.

[Endangered Specie]

67. DOnt worry about torrent site being shut down...

in this game, you kill one, ten more pop up in its place (i wont list them here, but If you are smart enough to have gotten bittorrent running and finding a good site, me thinks youll be able to do it again ;) :hi:).

remember, google is your friend, in all things. :)

[northzax]

95. er, 80,000x8

is 640,000. and hey, not very much got stolen, so it's not big deal right?

Look, you can argue, until you're blue in the face, that someone should give away his copyright and allow dowloading. you can argue that it's a bad business model not to do that, fine. But tell them that, it's their business.

I can argue until I'm blue in the face that ATM fees are stupid, but that does not give me the right to rob banks.

[high density]

26. Yeah, let's shut down FTP and HTTP as well

Cuz those could be used to swap moviez and gamez!!! ooh my God, what a world. If that doesn't work let's outlaw computer networks and removable storage media.

[Occulus]

32. I've used filesharing for many things,

mostly old, out-of-publication video games for systems that are now no longer made. I'm talking C64 games here, and the old NES line. Things you simply. Can't. Buy. Anywhere.

The very odd thing about the TV torrents is that, were I to use the TV features on my PC to record a show, and then use the video editors that came with the card to edit out the commercials, I'd have exactly what I would get were I to buy the DVD of that show's season. I did that with Stargate: Atlantis in its first season. Thanks to my efforts (no effort at all, really; the recorder is very fire-and-forget), I now have 2 DVDs with the Stargate: Atlantis first season on them.

Now, what is the substantive difference between me downloading these episodes from a torrent- which I didn't do- and recording them from the cable service that I pay for- which I did do? And keep in mind, we don't pay for the shows; we pay for the service itself. Advertising pays for the shows.

The end result is exactly the same.

edited to add: How in the name of God can ANYONE claim theft of music, when that same music is broadcast over the free and public airwaves to all and sundry? That argument, in particular, doesn't make sense.

I firmly believe, were the RIAA to develop some technology that makes a person 'forget' a song unless it comes in over the radio, they would implement it, and start charging people royalties for humming a tune if they thought they could get away with it.

I haven't bought a CD, nor listened to the radio for any appreciable length of time, in close to ten years. Until the filesharing war ends, I'll be continuing my personal boycott, but it was the bad, bad, bad, bad, BAD music of the early nineties that decided me back then.

[GHOSTDANCER]

104. LMAO!!!!

[NNguyenMD]

43. so whats the final word on downloading TV shows?

I c'mon for christ's sake its stuff spewing out of the public airwaves! Corporate America has no place staking claim on what is free.

[VegasWolf]

54. I personally don't see much difference between downloading a

publicly aired show on television or TIVOing it. In
neither case will I watch commercials. The only difference
is that on TIVO I have to hit the 30 sec jump button a few times
to skip the commercials. Downloaded torrents don't contain
commercials.

[Occulus]

137. Wasn't there a legal dispute when TIVO first appeared? n/t

[Occulus]

136. SOME would consider that illegal.

*I* think, if you are already a subscriber (as I am to the Sci-Fi channel), you should be legally allowed to download broadcasts that appear on that channel without penalty.

After all, you can record the damn things with a VCR- a court fight the industry LOST back in the 1980s.

SHAME on them for trying to convince other THAT is illegal. It shouldn't be, at all. Period.

[bikebloke]

44. Experimented with it

But over a phone line it takes forever. Never did finish. Plus it's difficult to sample during the download since the file is broken up.

[Endangered Specie]

63. No offense, but the guardian is slow...

not only has bittorrent been aroung a long time (in computer terms), but the MPAA/RIAA/corps have been hating it and actively trying to shut it down for months (the death of suprnova)

[Bread and Circus]

66. most movies suck these days anyway....

[dArKeR]

69. What does WhoreLand Security have to do with 13 year-olds downloading

MP3s and small low quality movies? I guess the Repukes want Americans drunk and on the streets looking for prostitutes instead of learning the latest advances in technology!


http://www.elitetorrents.org/

[The Jacobin]

73. Running Azureus right now

I have several linux distributions up, the project gutenberg cd and dvd, and Nasa's World Wind global data viewer. All legal and quite wonderful.

My current stats show 241.55GB uploaded from my computer over 165 days.

So put that in your pipe AND SMOKE IT!

[qw3rty]

85. Visit my torrent site

http://liberaltorrents.allhyper.com/

[Charles19]

87. If the MPAA wasn't so greedy they could use this to their advantage (n/t)

[bluestateguy]

106. I am still hemming and hawing about installing it in my computer

I just don't know. I am paranoid of viruses and getting sued by the MPAA. But if NBC/Universal doesn't hurry up and announce the DVD release dates for seasons 2 and 3 of "American Dreams", I may have to go hunting on BitTorrent.

[Occulus]

138. SEE?

See why these things exist?

I would say, ANYTHING ON TELEVISION is fair game. ANYTHING ON THE RADIO is fair game.

Publics airwaves do NOT recognise license agreements. Nor should they.