Do you use Bittorent or know someone who does?

The problem here is that a lot of the "everything for free, IP law is evil" will spin this as being a blow against liberty, freedom and fair use. When in many cases it's a clear violation of law and copyright/IP infringement.

Sites like suprnova and elitetorrents exist to distribute illegal copies of movies, music, apps and games. They leverage an excellent technology (BitTorrent) to do bad things.

Cracking down on P2P technology is like closing down roads to stop people from speeding. Why not just shut down the Internet? Ah, because corporate America makes MONEY on the internet. They don't care about any venue that doesn't have money in it for them.

In the middle of the whole Jack Valente crusade, he admitted that he had never even been on the Internet. There are hundreds of people making legal decisions about technology that we use every day, and who have ZERO clue as to how it works.

The problem here is that a lot of the "everything for free, IP law is evil"

Nope.  As a card carrying member of the Anti RIAA and MPAA orgs, I say if you do the crime, you pay for it.

I just cant stand their attitude of guilty until proven innocent.

I think P2P is a wonderful thing, the next big step in communications and knowledge sharing... The case Icon is mentioning is the FBI going after a site that misused the technology and provided illegal content.

I think lawmakers and courts are slowly catching on to the fact that the technology is independent from the use. Just because something can be misused doesn't mean it will, and therefore if you want to go after someone, go after those who do wrong, don't go after those who provide a generic tool that those wrongdoers use.

I agree Guy, you do the crime you do the time. Unfortunately few see this as a crime because it's not technically theft, and they assert that no harm is done.

I agree Guy, you do the crime you do the time. Unfortunately few see this as a crime because it's not technically theft, and they assert that no harm is done.

There are the ones you described earlier who think everything should be free, but I dont.  And as you said, Just because something can be misused is not a sign it will be.  But the Idiots of the MPAA nd RIAA seem to think that the only solution is to retard innovation and invention.  And that is my problem with them.  I have no problem nailing these clowns for using this gun to rob the store.

Cracking down on P2P technology is like closing down roads to stop people from speeding

The Feds are not cracking down on the technology, they are cracking down on sites that distrubute the stolen property. Huge difference.

The Feds are not cracking down on the technology, they are cracking down on sites that distrubute the stolen property. Huge difference.

In this case, yes.  But the ongoing controversy of RIAA and MPAA is trying to close the road.  Not arrest the speeders.

I just cant stand their attitude of guilty until proven innocent.

That's been the attitude of law enforcement at all levels for quite a few years.

That's been the attitude of law enforcement at all levels for quite a few years.

RIAA is not law enforcement last I checked.

It used to be thought that people who use VCRs to record movies should be punished, but then the movie industry found a way to make money off it. How is downloading music or movies without paying different from recording them from TV or the radio?

what is really funny is extra money is spent by law makers to close pirate web sites , while actual theft and bodily harm crime continues to rise , i guess victims of violent crime cant lobby as successfully as the RIAA

RIAA is not law enforcement last I checked

No, but law enforcement is getting involved.

My 2 cents

well let me tell you first off that i did download Star Wars III and still have it on my pc...but i did not download it til i went to see it in the theatre!! i mean really who really wants to watch a s**t quality movie that is supposed to be the most biggest eye candy movie of all time (so they say)...and furthermore i will be buying it as well when it is released on DVD...watchin it at home will never replace seeing it in theatre..um sure you can all agree! not to mention i will be goin again this saturday to see it in the theatre yet again for the second time..and have already watched the downloaded version i have more then enough times! so am i the bad guy????SURE if you wanna call it that...but i have paid my $10 once and will again! on top of that i own a recording studio and use these sites to make my music available to people that may never have the chance to buy my CD..

As well to mention i am not one of those people that think everything should be free!! i have a nice DVD & VHS collection and have spent retarded amounts of money on music! i have at least 1000 tapes about 400 hundred CD's and 20 crates of records....so once again am i a bad guy for downloading the new Coldplay album? SURE....but i really think i have giving the movie and music industry more then enough of my money!! and no this doesnt mean i'm never goin to buy movies or music ever again...it means that once and awhile sumthin fer free is nice!

so you can point yer finger at me all you like calling me the bad guy.....but i really dont think i am!

peas
cityboy

.....but i really dont think i am!

You prove my point. You feel that because you saw the film in the theater and that you eventually plan to buy the DVD when it is available, that you're entitled to having the downloaded copy in the time between. The fact remains though that you are stepping beyond fair use, you're stepping beyond what is theoretically fair or right. You obtained something that you do not have any legal or reasonable rights to. You are part of the problem that is causing the RIAA/MPAA/IP Nazis to come down like a ton of bricks on P2P technology.

Know that you are contributing to what could eventually be the prohibition of P2P technology.

Having thousands of legal CDs, movies etc doesn't excuse a single case of theft. I have let thousands of people live, should I be punished for that one time I slip up? Yeah, it's an extreme case, but it makes the point that you can't make up for a bad act with a dozen good acts. The bad act remains.

You can rationalize it any way you want... you already saw the movie, you have tons of legal stuff etc... but the fact remains that you are obtaining material against the express wishes of the content owner.

so you can point yer finger at me all you like calling me the bad guy.....but i really dont think i am!

That's the problem with the internet. When you steal something, it almost doesn't feel like you're doing anything wrong. Would you try and hide that same CD under your jacket in a real music store? There is no difference...at all.

"The Feds are not cracking down on the technology, they are cracking down on sites that distrubute the stolen property. Huge difference."

Sorry, that's wrong. Why did Napster disappear? Napster never hosted a single copyrighted file. All the files were on people's computers. All Napster did was allow you to search for files on other people's computers and download them.

Bittorrent is the same technology, decentralized. The only reason they have to deal with bittorrent on a site by site basis is because there is no central server, only sites that point to people who have pirated items on their computers. There are no pirated files on bittorrent sites

Do you think if I just post a link pointing to a file on YOUR computer that I am "distributing"? I never host the file, I never touch the file, it was never in my posession. When the link is clicked it isn't a request to my server, it is to the pirates server.

I think they are abusing the law to shut down and punish sites that AREN'T HOSTING movies. The sites get shut down, and the people hosting the movies more often than not keep right on hosting them.

"RIAA is not law enforcement last I checked"

Yet they can subpeona personal information from ISPs without knowing who they are dealing with, or even whether or not the file was really pirated. The RIAA and MPAA have had sites shut down, and sued people who only had files that were named similarly to copyrighted material.

For a few years the justice system has just opened the doors to their vigilante bullshit, and it needs to stop.

My 2 cents well let me tell you first off that i did download Star Wars III and still have it on my pc...but i did not download it til i went to see it in the theatre!! i mean really who really wants to watch a s**t quality movie that is supposed to be the most biggest eye candy movie of all time (so they say)...and furthermore i will be buying it as well when it is released on DVD...watchin it at home will never replace seeing it in theatre..um sure you can all agree! not to mention i will be goin again this saturday to see it in the theatre yet again for the second time..and have already watched the downloaded version i have more then enough times! so am i the bad guy????SURE if you wanna call it that...but i have paid my $10 once and will again! on top of that i own a recording studio and use these sites to make my music available to people that may never have the chance to buy my CD.. As well to mention i am not one of those people that think everything should be free!! i have a nice DVD & VHS collection and have spent retarded amounts of money on music! i have at least 1000 tapes about 400 hundred CD's and 20 crates of records....so once again am i a bad guy for downloading the new Coldplay album? SURE....but i really think i have giving the movie and music industry more then enough of my money!! and no this doesnt mean i'm never goin to buy movies or music ever again...it means that once and awhile sumthin fer free is nice! so you can point yer finger at me all you like calling me the bad guy.....but i really dont think i am! peas cityboy

same with me but i haven't seen it yet im gonna wait till after i see it in theaders and watch it till i get it on DVD when it comes out for it then i will delete it and end of that and i use bittorrent cuz its better then P2P porgrames like Kazza

If you think industry anti-piracy doesn't exert any authority, look into the Business Software Alliance, and their tactics.

If you thought your neighbor stole your watch, do you think you could go to the police based on an anonymous call and get a court order to kick down their door? Probably not. These industries have lobbied for years to buy themselves a weapon in the form of the US justice system, and they don't have to follow the same rules as other people.

Sorry, that's wrong. Why did Napster disappear? Napster never hosted a single copyrighted file. All the files were on people's computers. All Napster did was allow you to search for files on other people's computers and download them.

Napster ultimately lost because their servers, which held the master list of what was being shared, were centralized. The company could not claim it didn't know what was being shared. BitTorrent is different because it's both decentralized completely and there's no company behind it. Napster got nailed because it was knowingly contributing to copyright infringement.

These bittorrent sites provide links to pirated torrents. They are knowingly facilitating the infringement, which is almost as bad as the people sharing and downloading. It's the tracker sites that they're going after here Baker, and those sites are doing something wrong. They are directly facilitating software and music piracy. They're not at the moment attacking the specific technology.

Sorry For My Ignorance On American Enforcement Agencies But ...
What Do The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Have To Do
With Shutting Down An Internet Website?

I heard that at the moment, over 50% of the internet traffic is torrent. And, I use it as well, appaerently, I can download a moviie or tv serie without any problem. But, if I make the movie available to others, then I am in deep dooda. And, with torrents, you start to share as soon as you've downloaded a byte. Pitty, though, I liked Torrents (and Starwars III and National Treasure and Star Trek Enterprise).

I'll wait for the next best thing (Exeem?)
Regards,
TCM

I have to disagree, Zoomba. The law isn't designed to deal with this, and it is an abuse to do so. You use words like "facilitating", but in reality they never deal with these files. Only the names of people who have them.

If someone comes to me and says "I wanna buy some dope", and I say, "Joe down the street sells dope." Am I criminally facilitating? Not by any interpretation of the law. What if I put a sign in my yard saying "Joe sells dope!!"? Hell, the police would LOVE it if I did that.

That's all these sites do, point to people who host files. If we hold "facilitating" to that standard then it becomes a speech issue. If I tell you that a particular site has a file, I am neither hosting it or downloading it.

To make it illegal for me to tell you is very, very dubious. It isn't illegal to host a file with the name of a movie and an ip address in it, and basically that is all these sites do. Napster didn't have any business policing its users, and they aptly kept their noses out of what people had on their computers.

We need to step back and stop allowing corporations to decide what we can and can't say, and stick with the laws we have.

Intellectual Property law is a bit slipperier than regular law, and facilitating infringement (contributory and/or indirect infringement) is a recognized offense (it's what they hit Napster with) within the world of IP law.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=268
http://www.ladas.com/Patents/Biotechnology/USPharmPatentLaw/USPhar31.html

And most modern IP law hasn't been drafted by us or our representitives, it was drafted DIRECTLY by these industries and handed to legislators who then accept the good graces of lobbyists and vote it into law. Most of which had no knowledge of the Internet and its use.

I saw Larz Ulrich, in front of Congress, state openly that Napster hosted their songs on their servers. Not a single person asked for clarification, no one disputed it. The laws that were passed were just passed on such say-s0. All those finer points were glossed over with lies, and the legislators assumed they were addressing black-and-white piracy.

In reality, they weren't, and the laws you talk about are much more a threat to personal freedom than anything in the Patriot act. They allow COMMERCE to police us, and allow corporate America to decide what our freedom of speech or expression entails.

That's all these sites do, point to people who host files. If we hold "facilitating" to that standard then it becomes a speech issue. If I tell you that a particular site has a file, I am neither hosting it or downloading it.

Baker...it's called 'aiding and abetting', holding the bank's door open to let the robbers in is called aiding and abetting.

It's no stretch of the imagination or anyone's intelligence to see it as a criminal act.

How is downloading music or movies without paying different from recording them from TV or the radio?

It isn't 'technically' different, except the radio and TV have legal rights to 'distribute' the artwork via their media....those who use bittorrent do not, and never have had any permission, tacit, explicit, implied, intrinsic, or assumed.

 

Unfortunately few see this as a crime because it's not technically theft, and they assert that no harm is done.

So true.  Because it requires little more effort than pointing a finger at a keyboard it can't possibly be a crime.  If you heard the owner of the property screaming 'no, don't' you'd get the association with having sex without consent, too. [though even a dribbling moron would cotton onto the notion that that's called 'rape'].  Both are criminal acts obtaining 'something' without consent...