The end of bittorrent?

[cornsail]

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

The first makes you seem a conscienceless pirate, with no regard for IP rights.

Not everyone with a conscience believes that copyright violation is immoral. Illegal? Yes. But then again so is speeding.

[cornsail]

Originally Posted by bigred

Actually I downloaded stuff I bought on LP/CD before so I believe I'm legally (and IMO "morally") OK here.

You aren't legally OK, but I'd agree with the "morally" part.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I was quite put out when MegaUpload went down, because I know a lot of legitimate programmers and artists who used the site. But other websites have simply filled the void.

Demonoid will comparable if it goes down for good.

[bigred]

Not that it matters or I really care but I think I am, actually. What's illegal about having a copy of something I already own ripped to my own PC?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by lionking

Do you think illegal downloading of copyrighted material will continue unabated? Because I don't. There's too much money involved for copyright holders to simply sit back and do nothing. Cyber attacks on major pirate sites is something they would do, surely.

I personally question how much money piracy really takes away from copyright holders. It's simply not true that every illegal download equals a lost sale, thinking so ignores the whole principle of supply & demand. At the same time, it's my own personal experience that being introduced to a product through illegal downloads can lead to many legal purchases if the product is of good quality, purchases that would never have happened without the piracy.

I think long term the "solution" to illegal piracy will be found in legal producers increasing the ease and convenience of obtaining their product while simultaneously lowering the price to where it can compete with piracy, while also rethinking what "ownership" of intellectual property means.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by bigred

Not that it matters or I really care but I think I am, actually. What's illegal about having a copy of something I already own ripped to my own PC?

Nothing. Downloading it is ok, too. The legal problem is uploading/sharing. Then you are violating copyright by distributing.

So, just download, don't share :-)

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by bigred

Not that it matters or I really care but I think I am, actually. What's illegal about having a copy of something I already own ripped to my own PC?

From a strict licensing standpoint there is the possibility of using the same product license in two different locations at the same time. You cannot put the same CD in two different CD players at the same time but your wife or kids can put the CD in a player at home and listen to it while you listen to a ripped MP3 from the same CD in your iPod on your way to work at the same time.

I don't agree with this philosophy but that's the "Logic" behind the law. Personally I rip all of my music to a hard drive and pack away the CD in a closet so that if the hard drive fails I can re-rip it. I've paid too much for copies of the same albums over the years in various formats (or because they became unplayable for various reasons) to do so again.

[Zeuzzz]

Even if pirating through torrents gets worse and companies make less money in the future ... there are open source programmers working on games as we speak which will be free in future anyway, there are people making music happy to give it for free and just ask for donations to get them enough without lining their pockets like Britney spears and movies and films always have the cinema and celebrities to promote things like that. I don't personally pirate via torrent, but half of my music synths are (were) emailed to me via piratebay (now they just use a direct torrent file attached) as it takes up less of their servers for the download. I can see it taking a very long time till piracy gets easy enough for it to start making a really noticeable difference to big companies. If anything in the future it will spread the wealth out through the general population more and the free/donation user content will start becoming just as good as buying from a company would have been anyway.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Nothing. Downloading it is ok, too. The legal problem is uploading/sharing. Then you are violating copyright by distributing.

So, just download, don't share :-)

Is it possible to turn the uploading off completely on bittorrents?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Is it possible to turn the uploading off completely on bittorrents?

Yes you can. However many sites have requirements that you share files (seeding) to continue being a member.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Yes you can. However many sites have requirements that you share files (seeding) to continue being a member.

I realize there are many different programs, but I wonder if they all technically turn off uploading, or if they just just "limit it" to 0 kbs. In other words, it might still be uploading a bit and not be exactly zero.....

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

I realize there are many different programs, but I wonder if they all technically turn off uploading, or if they just just "limit it" to 0 kbs. In other words, it might still be uploading a bit and not be exactly zero.....

You cant have uploads off completely, otherwise your computer would not be able to establish peer to peer connections to begin downloading your desired file.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

While there are some people like Radiohead who can pull off the "donation" thingy, since most bands realistically have to work with a label and/or agency this route is not an option. Also, when deciding about bands to book for tours and other investments they look at CD sales. And while not all torrents are lost sales, that does not mean they came up for the actual lost sales. That model works for software like Photoshop pretty well, but for music I'm not too sure. I read a lot of blogs from the bands I like and they seem to be getting pretty depressed about the whole situation.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Also, when deciding about bands to book for tours and other investments they look at CD sales.

Perhaps they should instead look at the number of torrent downloads.

[bigred]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

From a strict licensing standpoint there is the possibility of using the same product license in two different locations at the same time. You cannot put the same CD in two different CD players at the same time but your wife or kids can put the CD in a player at home and listen to it while you listen to a ripped MP3 from the same CD in your iPod on your way to work at the same time.

I don't agree with this philosophy but that's the "Logic" behind the law. Personally I rip all of my music to a hard drive and pack away the CD in a closet so that if the hard drive fails I can re-rip it. I've paid too much for copies of the same albums over the years in various formats (or because they became unplayable for various reasons) to do so again.

I hate to tell you this, but CDs don't last forever. In fact, ironically, LPs had/have a much longer shelf life. (check the discussion on this stuff in the Computer forum where I asked about flash drives.....)

Anyway hear you on the logic on the law thing...

[leonAzul]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Perhaps they should instead look at the number of torrent downloads.

There is so much truth in this comment that certain keepers of the distribution systems extant seventy years ago don't want to hear. Kicking and screaming they have been brought into the twentieth century; how much more pain do they need to endure before they wake up in the twenty-first?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by bigred

I hate to tell you this, but CDs don't last forever. In fact, ironically, LPs had/have a much longer shelf life. (check the discussion on this stuff in the Computer forum where I asked about flash drives.....)

Anyway hear you on the logic on the law thing...

No, properly stored CDs have a very long shelf life. Maybe you should have read the thread.

CDs degrade if you leave them near heat or light. I have some that are at least twenty years old, not a single skip or problem playing them.

Now will they last 100 years, that is a different question.

[OCaptain]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

If Demonoid stopped working entirely, people would go somewhere else.

If Bit Torrent stopped working entirely, people would use something else.

As long as it is easier to take content for free than to pay for it, people will do it.

Yeah, it's so much easier to skip that whole paying step.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by OCaptain

Yeah, it's so much easier to skip that whole paying step.

Esspecially when there's no way to pay for it because of a byzantine distribution system that makes no sense in the internet age.

[bigred]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

No, properly stored CDs have a very long shelf life. Maybe you should have read the thread.

There are many so-called experts who disagree. Maybe you should do some research.

What the "real" answer is I can't say. I have had CDs which lasted a long time and some that haven't, and none were over-exposed to heat/light/etc. Bottom line any data I really care about, CDs would probably be my last choice for storage.

[OCaptain]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Esspecially when there's no way to pay for it because of a byzantine distribution system that makes no sense in the internet age.

I've heard alot of people who try to justify illegal downloading, do it by suggesting that - because HBO doesn't allow you to buy every episode of the current season of "Game of Thrones" (as an example) as it airs - then they must get it illegally. There is a certain inflated sense of entitlement in this that just blows my mind.

1. As the owner of content , they can choose however they wish to sell it.
2. Waiting til the Blu-ray season comes out to buy all the eps is still offering it for you to buy.
3. A la carte is not the only acceptable method of selling content.
4. Do I always like it? No, but I do understand it.

The idea expressed by those folks "if I can't buy it in the way I want to buy, then I'm justified in stealing it".

Such hubris!!

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

Thanks, my life is complete.

Now show me I'm wrong.

What part of "he is uploading his own material" didn't you understand? Uploading means taking something from his computer and sending it out to others. His own material means he has the actual copyright to it. Unless you think he is violating his own copyright (a neat trick that), you are indeed wrong.

[franklinveaux]

I find it implausible that the DDoS is being done by copyright holders--not because the MPAA and RIAA would not do anything illegal, but because that isn't the way they think. Remember, we're talking about two large business organizations that are only just barely computer literate to begin with, and who seem to sincerely believe that the solution is more laws. Plus, it's hard to imagine businesses executives having the courage to risk their bonuses and yachts by authorizing something that's clearly and directly against the law.

Originally Posted by OCaptain

The idea expressed by those folks "if I can't buy it in the way I want to buy, then I'm justified in stealing it".

Such hubris!!

There definitely does seem to be a sense of entitlement among folks who download content. You bet. And there's a weird flaw in some of the rationalizations that I see; for example, "The RIAA is corrupt and hardly pays its artists anything, so it's OK if I screw the RIAA by downloading the music for free" (thereby paying the artists...nothing?).

On the other hand, the system of copyright in this country is fundamentally flawed, the business model for a lot of content-related businesses is broken, and the resistance to online distribution by the RIAA and the MPAA really does look like a bunch of technically illiterate, wealthy executives frantically trying to protect their fat paychecks by holding on to an outmoded business model with the desperation of a drowning man clinging to a rope. I get the impulse to be exasperated with the whole business of entertainment and to look for what you want on BitTorrent, I really do.

On the third hand...

Copyright does not benefit JUST big business. When people steal content, often they DO end up hurting the content creators they claim to love. And that happens even when the content is free. I write for a living, and a great deal of what I write, I release under a Creative Commons-style license that specifically permits people to use and distribute my work for nothing, so long as they provide attribution, they don't sell it, and they give my various Web sites a linkback.

And what do I see? People lifting my work without attribution. People posting my work on their own pay-for-access sites...and claiming ownership of it. People distributing my work under their name. Even when something is available for free, people STILL feel the need to steal it! And that's profoundly ********** up.

So, yes, the MPAA and the RIAA are corrupt. Yes, they are clinging to broken business models. Yes, copyright law is tilted in favor of large corporations. Yes, BitTorrenting happens to large extent because people can't get the content they want in the manner they want it. All that is true...but that's not the whole of the story. And I do wish more folks would remember that when they steal content.

Do not circumvent the autocensor. It gets bored and starts causing server lag.

Posted By:kmortis

[bigred]

Originally Posted by OCaptain

I've heard alot of people who try to justify illegal downloading, do it by suggesting that - because HBO doesn't allow you to buy every episode of the current season of "Game of Thrones" (as an example) as it airs - then they must get it illegally. There is a certain inflated sense of entitlement in this that just blows my mind.

1. As the owner of content , they can choose however they wish to sell it.
2. Waiting til the Blu-ray season comes out to buy all the eps is still offering it for you to buy.
3. A la carte is not the only acceptable method of selling content.
4. Do I always like it? No, but I do understand it.

The idea expressed by those folks "if I can't buy it in the way I want to buy, then I'm justified in stealing it".

Such hubris!!

Rationalization perhaps, but calling it "hubris" makes no sense. And for some (many?) it's not a question of entitlement, but "I do because I can." ie they want it but not enough to pay for it and know realistically they can download it without penalty/punishment.

[amensae]

I was about to enter this debate (late) when Franklinveaux stole my thunder.
But in the end that’s what it’s all about – stealing. We add an aura of romanticism by calling it piracy – the term recalls the bold buccaneers of yore, or the intrepid offshore radio broadcasters of the sixties, etcetera. Even the copyright holders call it piracy. No – it’s theft.
If I steal a loaf of bread from a shop because I’m hungry, or evade a cabbie’s fare because I’m broke, or rip off the insurance company because they’re... well, scumbags... I may find some moral justification for my actions. But I am not a pirate. I’m a thief.
In fact, it is rather depressing that so many otherwise intelligent and ethical people seem to place intellectual and physical property into two separate compartments. They would not even consider stealing the latter, but appear to have few or no second thoughts about stealing the former. It’s all about mindset... which is either ironic or appropriate, given that the property at stake here is things of the mind.

[bigred]

You spin your way, I'll spin mine. Sorry it's not as simple as you try to make it sound.

[MG1962]

Well it seems Demonoid may be officially dead. The site names have been put up for sale (even that is creating issues) so what ever the future of torrents and pirating it appears Demoniod has gone the way of Napster and others.

http://torrentfreak.com/demonoid-dom...ncerns-120818/

[Skeptic Guy]

Originally Posted by bigred

Rationalization perhaps, but calling it "hubris" makes no sense. And for some (many?) it's not a question of entitlement, but "I do because I can." ie they want it but not enough to pay for it and know realistically they can download it without penalty/punishment.

But doing it because I can and may be able to do so without penalty or punishment is still wrong.

I am continually amazed by the number of people who claim, because they either feel that a piece of copyrighted material is too expensive or not provided in the appropriate format, they have the right to steal it. (Not saying that you harbor that rationalization, Bigred)

I work for a company that handles a lot of content for major studios and broadcasters (we did some work on the recent Hunger Games release), plus my wife use to work for BMI. I understand that not everyone makes a huge killing on their content so I won't steal it and if I want to keep my job, I can't steal it.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by MG1962

The site names have been put up for sale (even that is creating issues) so what ever the future of torrents and pirating it appears Demoniod has gone the way of Napster and others.

I don't think the comparison with Napster is fitting at all.

Whatever users of Demonoid thought, they were just a small cog in the torrent-machinery.

The same cries of 'torrents are dead' were heard when Suprnova died, when Torrentspy died, when Pirate Bay was supposedly closed, when lots of other torrent sites were shut down. But what always happens is that the users move on to another site and the traffic stays the same.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by amensae

I was about to enter this debate (late) when Franklinveaux stole my thunder.
But in the end that’s what it’s all about – stealing. We add an aura of romanticism by calling it piracy – the term recalls the bold buccaneers of yore, or the intrepid offshore radio broadcasters of the sixties, etcetera. Even the copyright holders call it piracy. No – it’s theft.
If I steal a loaf of bread from a shop because I’m hungry, or evade a cabbie’s fare because I’m broke, or rip off the insurance company because they’re... well, scumbags... I may find some moral justification for my actions. But I am not a pirate. I’m a thief.
In fact, it is rather depressing that so many otherwise intelligent and ethical people seem to place intellectual and physical property into two separate compartments. They would not even consider stealing the latter, but appear to have few or no second thoughts about stealing the former. It’s all about mindset... which is either ironic or appropriate, given that the property at stake here is things of the mind.

Or, it could be because when you steal a loaf of bread, the shop no longer has the loaf of bread.

When you commit copyright infringement, the shop still has their content.

Copyright infringement is the proper term. Not theft.

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Or, it could be because when you steal a loaf of bread, the shop no longer has the loaf of bread.

When you commit copyright infringement, the shop still has their content.

Copyright infringement is the proper term. Not theft.

I think the (in my view, erroneous) argument is that the people doing the infringing are denying the copyright holders money from sales they might otherwise have made. IMHO, that's a claim that needs independent research to be verified.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Or, it could be because when you steal a loaf of bread, the shop no longer has the loaf of bread.

When you commit copyright infringement, the shop still has their content.

Copyright infringement is the proper term. Not theft.

It is a certainly a term to describe what is really a form of theft.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by OCaptain

I've heard alot of people who try to justify illegal downloading, do it by suggesting that - because HBO doesn't allow you to buy every episode of the current season of "Game of Thrones" (as an example) as it airs - then they must get it illegally. There is a certain inflated sense of entitlement in this that just blows my mind.

1. As the owner of content , they can choose however they wish to sell it.
2. Waiting til the Blu-ray season comes out to buy all the eps is still offering it for you to buy.
3. A la carte is not the only acceptable method of selling content.
4. Do I always like it? No, but I do understand it.

The idea expressed by those folks "if I can't buy it in the way I want to buy, then I'm justified in stealing it".

Such hubris!!

Blu-Ray and dvd in general is already obsolete, many people don't even have a player. People want to download their movies. And maybe take 2-3 days to view them, not 24 hours.

You can scream from your high and mighty perch all you'd like about how copyright holders can demand the consumer jump through this hoop and that before they can view their precious content, but they may as well order the tide to recede.

Of the ten most pirated movies in 2011, exactly ZERO are available for purchase via download. There's certainly hubris involved here, but it's not from the consumer.

[The Fallen Serpent]

Copyright infringement is one form of theft, just like plagiarism, patent violations, ect. I have no problem with saying that. I do have a problem saying it is essentially equal to theft of physical property. Even when it does result in loss of profits.

Regardless of the ethics of violating copyright in illegal downloading, I don't think traditional media distribution is sustainable in the long term in the size and profits it currently posseses. Yes, I feel bad for the content providers. I even feel bad for the distribution networks. Those networks are threatened with a massive shrinking of their industry. By that I do not mean the results of theft, but the results of competing models that are much more effecient and convenient for their potential customer base. Just look at Netflix streaming. They took a big hit from various content and distribution companies being less and less willing to work with them out of the fear the streaming model is successfully taking up market share from more traditional outlets. However such models are not going away. It will be slow going but as the money shifts so will the capability to fund content creation.

The Twentieth Century was a great time to be successful creater of intellectual properties. The supply and cost of distribution was at a sweet spot to make remarkable salaries for the lucky few. Personally I think that is going to be increasingly a thing of the past. More I suspect we will see more modest incomes and much more variety in our entertainment as these models work themselves out. My speculation is that these big fights over the exact nature of the IP rights will in many cases be irrelevant in a few decades, at least with regards to media.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

It is a certainly a term to describe what is really a form of theft.

What does that mean, 'really' a form of theft ?

It's a violation of an agreement to let a certain party control the distribution of a non-tangible thing. I don't see that as any kind of theft.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Serpent

Copyright infringement is one form of theft, just like plagiarism, patent violations, ect. I have no problem with saying that. I do have a problem saying it is essentially equal to theft of physical property. Even when it does result in loss of profits.

Regardless of the ethics of violating copyright in illegal downloading, I don't think traditional media distribution is sustainable in the long term in the size and profits it currently posseses. Yes, I feel bad for the content providers. I even feel bad for the distribution networks. Those networks are threatened with a massive shrinking of their industry. By that I do not mean the results of theft, but the results of competing models that are much more effecient and convenient for their potential customer base. Just look at Netflix streaming. They took a big hit from various content and distribution companies being less and less willing to work with them out of the fear the streaming model is successfully taking up market share from more traditional outlets. However such models are not going away. It will be slow going but as the money shifts so will the capability to fund content creation.

The Twentieth Century was a great time to be successful creater of intellectual properties. The supply and cost of distribution was at a sweet spot to make remarkable salaries for the lucky few. Personally I think that is going to be increasingly a thing of the past. More I suspect we will see more modest incomes and much more variety in our entertainment as these models work themselves out. My speculation is that these big fights over the exact nature of the IP rights will in many cases be irrelevant in a few decades, at least with regards to media.

I think the primary money loss will be to all the middle men in the distribution chain, not to the content creators.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

I don't think the comparison with Napster is fitting at all.

Whatever users of Demonoid thought, they were just a small cog in the torrent-machinery.

The same cries of 'torrents are dead' were heard when Suprnova died, when Torrentspy died, when Pirate Bay was supposedly closed, when lots of other torrent sites were shut down. But what always happens is that the users move on to another site and the traffic stays the same.

What troubles me is the way it was done - very different to past actions. Multiple denial of service coordinated with legal action in two countries. I would guess there next target would be pirate bay, so that would be the real test.

I dont think they believe they can kill file sharing, but if they drive it underground the amount of activity will drop

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I think the primary money loss will be to all the middle men in the distribution chain, not to the content creators.

Yes it is interesting what a musician or author gets for their work as a percentage of what we pay. In the era of electronic media, where there is virtually no over-heads beyond paying the author and paying themselves, one wonders why the cost to the consumer has not dropped dramatically

[TheL8Elvis]

Court affirms $675,000 penalty in music-downloading case

A federal court in Massachusetts today upheld a $675,000 damages award against Joel Tenenbaum, who was accused of illegally downloading 31 songs from a fire-sharing Web site and distributing them and was sued by the main recording companies in the U.S.

One more reason theft is such a bad word to describe copyright infringement. The penalties aren't even remotely similar.

[Chris L]

Originally Posted by MG1962

What troubles me is the way it was done - very different to past actions. Multiple denial of service coordinated with legal action in two countries. I would guess there next target would be pirate bay, so that would be the real test.

I dont think they believe they can kill file sharing, but if they drive it underground the amount of activity will drop

The activity in question is already underground in the same sense that smoking pot is. Trying to drive it further underground is likely to be as successful too.