Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Hot Comments

Comments: 352 +-   Mininova Removes All Copyright-Infringing Torrents on Thursday November 26, @11:19AM

Posted by Soulskill on Thursday November 26, @11:19AM
from the another-one-bites-the-dust dept.
movies
internet
news
Pabugs writes with news that popular torrent site Mininova has abandoned their attempts at filtering and simply deleted all torrents other than the legal ones they facilitate through their Content Distribution service. According to their blog post, they were left "no other option than to take [their] platform offline" after a court ruling from August. "The judge ruled that Mininova is not directly responsible for any copyright infringements, but ordered it to remove all torrents linking to copyrighted material within three months, or face a penalty of up to 5 million euros."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Debate! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by headkase (533448) <pickett.bill@gmail.com> on Thursday November 26, @11:24AM (#30237632)
    There is obviously an issue with regards to copyright in our society. Millions and more are sharing all the time. This points the finger at the issue being systemic. We need to educate people to enable a wider debate. That is the only thing that will lead to fair change. Piracy is not the answer. There is a place for copyright that is not todays distorted parameters. Boycotting in the mean time is the answer, however, unless boycotting is whipped into shape it is also not the answer. Debate! Educate your friends and family it is a small start but it is the only way.
    • Re:Debate! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday November 26, @11:32AM (#30237706)

      The whole thing smells more and more like the old P&P RPG Paranoia. Everyone hates secret societies, everyone hates mutants, yet everyone is a mutant in a secret society.

      I worked for our version of the RIAA for a while (I didn't mean to, they were part of the bundle of companies I had to support). My moment of "wtf" came when one of their lawyers approached me and asked if I knew anything about flashing a Nintendo DS for their kids so they can play copies.

      My answer was "since you're suing people who know aynthing about flashing Nintendos or even do it, my answer has to be no". This is when he offered money...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by headkase (533448)
        That shows a lack of principle. We are all fallible, I'm petty and arrogant all the time - especially here ;) - but if we want to improve our lot as a whole education is the only answer. It may be too late for us cynical and jaded adults but perhaps we can try an experiment with our children. Teach them to be responsible citizens. Start with restoring an actual functioning public domain. Then teach copyright obligations in civics classes to primary school students. It will never be easy as we all want
        • Not necessarily (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Mathinker (909784) on Thursday November 26, @01:05PM (#30238420) Journal

          > But, collectively, we have to have room for compromise or we will all get nothing.

          I can think of a lot of futures where this is not true.

          For example, the future where copyright law is unchanged, infringement is rampant and unenforceable, and the content industry merely has to scale down because of lowered profits.

          Or the future where the content industry pushes copyright law so out of whack that no one infringes, but their profits are just as lowered because many people are so afraid of the possible penalties they totally avoid buying their products and instead go for the safe indie products which have CC/alternative licensing and/or viewing the content only in ephemeral ways (like on television or a movie screen).

          BTW, when I finished school I was a model "responsible citizen" in that I would never have thought to break any laws. Now that I am an adult, I see that the simplistic "law == morality" equivalence is far from being correct. So you might have a big problem in your plans, there, eh?

          • Re:Debate! (Score:5, Interesting)

            by headkase (533448) <pickett.bill@gmail.com> on Thursday November 26, @12:09PM (#30238006)
            I am doing something. See my signature. And I actually don't have anything to lose so I'm choosing to stick it to the man because I can. People can force change through virtue all that is needed is the appropriate vehicle. Slashdot almost gets there, see my signature for a vehicle-in-progress that would allow you to say fuck you in as neutral a setting as possible. Organization is the key. Individually we are relatively intelligent, collectively we are a juggernaut. All we need is the mechanism to arrive at fair truth. What policy maker will risk flying in the face of that? They'd be taken to the nearest tree and hanged. Figuratively of course, we are a democracy.
              • Re:Debate! (Score:5, Interesting)

                by headkase (533448) <pickett.bill@gmail.com> on Thursday November 26, @01:28PM (#30238604)
                I'll give you some background. Where I live, Newfoundland, Canada, there is a province wide radio station: same broadcast for everyone. They have a 1-800 number you can call into. It is a debating forum at heart, it is called Open Line. It has a very balanced and intelligent moderator running the show for people to engage with. It is insanely popular here. Everyone listens to it and enough people call into it that it has built its own momentum for issues of the day. People call in and address what pisses them off. Politicians also call in all the time when they get sniped to refute or otherwise manage the issue. When a politician, or policy maker, calls they are put right through to address the issue. Everyone else gets in a queue but eventually does get their say (1-800 number..). This program enables a feedback mechanism that works extremely well here. Perhaps our history and culture explains how it came to be established. In the 1990's our primary industry, fishing, collapsed as the stocks were not properly managed from a government and citizen perspective. This sowed the seeds of doubt and lead people to question authority. As the inertia grew more people jumped on the band-wagon. As a result now that this singular institution is established in our culture our government functions better because of it. This is a lesson that can be drawn from us. It deserves to be shamelessly copied, my signature proposes implementing it on the web. I'm not a good mechanic however so I am asking for your help - please add your opinion to it.
                • Re:Debate! (Score:5, Funny)

                  by Have Brain Will Rent (1031664) on Thursday November 26, @05:01PM (#30239996)

                  In the 1990's our primary industry, fishing, collapsed as the stocks were not properly managed from a government and citizen perspective.

                  Not to mention from the perspective of the fish!

      • Re:Debate! (Score:5, Informative)

        by masmullin (1479239) on Thursday November 26, @12:12PM (#30238046)
        That was sort of dumb of you. The answer to ANY request an RIAA person has for you is "no"... not some big shpeel about "how you sue people who know stuff". Just say No and be done with it.

        Eg.
        Q:Could you help me flash my NintendoDS?
        A:No

        Q:Could you find me the latest cd on thepiratebay?
        A:No

        Q:Could you grab me a coke?
        A:No

        Q:Could you call 911 since I am about to go into cardiac arrest?
        A:No

        Q:Could you stop aliens from kidnapping my children?
        A:No

        Q:Could you give me the time of day?
        A:No

        See, its easy.
        • Re:Debate! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26, @12:29PM (#30238170)

          +1. If more people learned the power of saying "no" the world would be a better place.

          Q: Want to work a 60 hour week for 30 hour pay?
          A: No

          Q: Want to let us look after your money so we can leverage it and then give you a tiny fraction of the profit?
          A: No

          Q: Want to borrow some of that money to buy an overpriced house?
          A: No

          The only reason "no" is not a viable answer to any of these and many similar questions is because there are far too many suckers who are willing to say "yes."

        • Re:Debate! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by MachDelta (704883) on Thursday November 26, @12:37PM (#30238224)

          Q:Could you call 911 since I am about to go into cardiac arrest?
          A:No

          Depending on where you live, that answer may technically be illegal. Plenty of countries and a few states (oh and Quebec too) have a "Duty to rescue" law which, in a nutshell, states that you must attempt to assist an individual in peril provided that it doesn't also put your life at risk. At the very least, you would be expected to call for help.

          It's all semantics though. I can't imagine any decent human being simply standing there and watching while another human has a heart attack, no matter who they work for.

          • Re:Debate! (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Thursday November 26, @12:49PM (#30238304)

            Let's see.

            Imagine that other human being destroyed your life and put you in prison for five years.

            How about, your children were sexually abused while in child protective services and one committed suicide.

            Of course, if the law requires that I go get help, I'd have

            to

            go
            .
            .
            .
            get
            .
            .
            .
            help
            .
            .
            .
            as
            .
            .
            fast
            .
            .
            .
            .
            as
            .
            .
            .
            .
            possible.

            I've done the non-vengeance thing and I've done the vengeance thing and let me tell you, vengeance was damn sweet and I have no regrets. It's the only thing that made me smile now and then for a couple years while I recovered back to human.

          • Re:Debate! (Score:5, Funny)

            by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday November 26, @12:54PM (#30238348)

            I thought that duty to rescue only applies to fellow humans and not RIAA lawyers?

          • by TiggertheMad (556308) on Thursday November 26, @03:38PM (#30239482) Homepage Journal
            I can't imagine any decent human being simply standing there and watching while another human has a heart attack, no matter who they work for.

            You called that one, I sure couldn't just stand there and watch. I mean, how often do you get a chance to kick a RIAA person WHILE they are having a heart attack?
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              Not everywhere in the US. In Pennsylvania, for example, "Depraved Indifference" can be tantamount to "involuntary manslaughter."

               

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Unfortunately, when you're working for them, such a denial of service could be seen as a refusal to work. Which not only could cost you your job but also seem a bit suspicious. And ya know, this time and age suspicion is all you have to raise to be a criminal.

    • Re:Debate! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Krneki (1192201) on Thursday November 26, @11:39AM (#30237762)
      The Pandora box was open a long time ago and since then the piracy has become more and more mainstream. Since the dawn of the net it has never, ever had a setback longer then a week, hell will freeze over before the piracy will see a decline.
    • Re:Debate! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ivoras (455934) <(ivoras) (at) (fer.hr)> on Thursday November 26, @12:08PM (#30237996) Homepage

      There is obviously an issue with regards to copyright in our society. Millions and more are sharing all the time. This points the finger at the issue being systemic.

      I'd rather look at the cause of this "issue" - i.e. *why* does it exist. And I'll offer an answer - because it is harder and harder to get rich quickly while staying legal. The fact that I download movies all the time didn't influence my moviegoing one bit - I still go out to the movies every week or two because of the experience and the company of friends - both of which suck over DIVX. My problem is that there usually isn't anything good out there to see. Some nights, we don't remember what we watched around 5 minutes after leaving the cinema! I doubt the problem is with a lack of quality writers or actors or directors - I think most of it comes from producers and other financiers trying to cram in special effects, political correctness and crowd-pleasing stories (especially endings) to try to maximize the profits, like art can be expressed by equations. I don't feel one bit bad about downloading "2012" but I watched Inglorious Basterds and Watchmen twice (just a recent example) and I have a hefty collection of (legal, bought) DVDs of good films and TV shows. My point is that that a significant part of the piracy issue (not all of it!) is the direct result of the fall in quality and resorting to formulaic "this script equals this much $$$" thinking on the part of producers.

      I'm sure the same thing goes for music.

      One other large thing is convenience - sometimes people just don't feel like going to the movies and it's easier to download the film right now and watch it than waiting months for it to come on DVDs, etc. It is human nature - the baby wants what it wants. There are surely more problems, but I have a feeling these two combined are the cause of over 50% of the piracy issues. Heck, solve the distribution issue (make it cheap and easy and at the same time worldwide as the cinema releases) and I'd bet that 40% of all piracy would simply disappear over night.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by headkase (533448)
        You have hit the nail right on the head. Industry in the form of the RIAA and MPAA is not meeting the needs of their customers. I want to download all my movies with none of that idiotic DRM, I want a public domain so that others can pick up the ball and continue where the current holder doesn't, I want many more things as well. But RIAA and MPAA members only want one thing: money. How they get it is control and they are playing a maximization game. What they fail to realize is that there are other age
    • Re:Debate! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Znork (31774) on Thursday November 26, @12:47PM (#30238288)

      There is a place for copyright

      I used to think that, but I don't any more. Any monopolies handed out by the government and whose cost is borne by the public and the distributed economy will be treated as of interest for the receiving stakeholders only, and thus will permanently expand as the paying parties will not be represented in discussions around the issue. See the claims about IP jobs 'lost' to piracy, yet where are the discussions about jobs among plumbers, pizzamakers or other branches of the economy when copyright shifts money and resources from one part of the economy to the other? Are those branches represented when it's arbitrarily decided that they should be deprived of resources in favour of media industries? Copyright creates no resources, it merely redistributes them.

      So no, there is no place for copyright. Any honest industry or creators support scheme requires that it be managed within the normal budget of governments and, like any other redistribution scheme, have its benefits weighed against its costs, and accounted for to the public. No other government scheme has anywhere close to as bad efficiency of copyright; if any other program had less than 5% of funding going to the actual intended beneficiaries there'd be an uproar.

      That's not to say there can't be reasonable schemes for encouraging creativity; the easiest would simply be mandatory licensing which dispenses of any contracts no matter what outlet or reproduction, and simply requires a percentage (50-75%, for example) of any revenue derived from the copying to be paid to the creators (via a public agency, such as the IRS, not through private entities like in radio, and modulated by policy). Then it would also be easy to manage reasonable cost/benefit levels (should there be a ceiling on payouts and the rest spread along the long tail to encourage more production, for example, how many years of payout is the optimum to keep creative material flowing, etc).

      Boycotting is not enough, the corrosive effect of corruption on politics is too strong, and politically it's only used to claim that anyone boycotting is pirating anyway. But it's certainly a right thing to do; paying for anything from the RIAA/MPAA corps means supporting the type of corruption going on as ACTA and other back-room deals, which I find utterly unacceptable by now.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by headkase (533448)
        I tend to agree, but, I'm willing to make a deal. Give me a fair term before public domain takes effect and in return I will accept a limited term of copyright. Not todays term which is effectively forever when compared to an individuals life-span.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by gnasher719 (869701)

          Some copyright is quite reasonable. What we need is a legalization of noncommercial copyright infringement. Leave the rest of copyright law perfectly as it is. I should be able to share all the files I want, but as soon as I start trying to make money doing that, that's when it should become illegal (as it is today).

          I don't think there should be a distinction between commercial and non-commercial, there should be a distinction depending on the amount of damages, and obviously commercial copying would give more evidence of damages.

          But consider what could happen if non-commercial infringement wasn't punished: Let's say Steve Jobs has an argument with someone who happens to be the boss of a record company. So Steve Jobs buys two dozen XServes, goes to a record store and buys all CDs made by that record company, plus or

        • Re:Debate! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by icebraining (1313345) on Thursday November 26, @12:30PM (#30238176)

          And stop with the stupid after copyright. It's not like Miles Davis can benefit from any copy of Kind of Blue sold today. The purpose of copyright is to provide a source of revenue for the creator, so more people will create stuff, not for some label can profit more.

  • by purpledinoz (573045) on Thursday November 26, @11:24AM (#30237634)
    Mininova replaced Suprnova, and Mininova will be replaced by another site. It's like playing whack-a-mole, except there are 1000 moles and 1 hammer.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I don't know, quality of (public) torrent sites has been on the decline for a while. Now with demonoid still down, mininova dead and the piratebay in limbo what will replace them ? This feels like after Napster when the last of the replacements like audiogalaxy were running out of steam.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by antdude (79039)

      Now that TPB and Miniova are no longer cool. What good public sites are left these days?

    • The internet is actually a smaller place than most people think. When it comes to any given field, no matter how large, there are really only a few dozen major sites to consider. Sometimes less.

      How many large torrent trackers are there really? Twenty, Thirty? I doubt it's over a hundred. Depends on your definition of large perhaps, but I'll make mine; A tracker which hosts TV, Movies, Music, Games and Software, and which has a large number of seeders and leechers (>10000). How many of these site are there? I estimate that there are about a dozen who really count.

      Throw out as many platitudes as you like, but the RIAA et al are putting the bittorrent genie back in the bottle. Technology has not kept pace with legal manoeuvres and one by one the top sites are being shut down. With them goes the hundreds of thousands of technically inexperienced seeds and leechers need to keep torrents healthy. Trackers need critical mass for torrents to be useful, but this mass makes them an easy target for legal action.

      This is still whack a mole, but the ratio of moles to hammers is, at most, 10:1. The decline of bittorrent began with the Pirate Bay but it will not stop there. Without major changes to how it is centralised, bittorrent will go the way of napster before it and you'll be back to getting your stuff on irc again.

      The Net has changed. The Chinese government has proven that the internet and its users can be brought to heel on a massive scale. Netizens in general, and in particular the geeks whose obligation was to defend the network, have shown though lack of innovation that they are not going to defend users freedoms, anonymity or rights online. We'd all rather give our data to webhosts, ISPs, and Google; trusting them not to betray us. Technology has given power back to the big players, and not delivered on its promise to ordinary people.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Mininova replaced Suprnova, and Mininova will be replaced by another site. It's like playing whack-a-mole, except there are 1000 moles and 1 hammer.

      Next up: Moderatelysizednova.

  • by Guspaz (556486) on Thursday November 26, @11:26AM (#30237654) Homepage

    Most of the success from the CDN service relied on the fact that millions of users visiting Mininova for general torrents would also be exposed to the CDN torrents. With Mininova's general torrent index deep-sixed, traffic will plummet to a tiny fraction of what it was before, and activity on CDN torrents will drop correspondingly.

    While this means that users of the CDN won't get any extra exposure, it's still a useful service for pure distribution (they handle the tracking and seeding). Unfortunately, with no revenue stream, mininova won't be able to support that for long.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26, @11:27AM (#30237664)

    It's always annoying to have loads of stolen software music and films come up when I am searching for a torrent.
    Having mininova get rid of all the illigal stuff will make it much easier and more pleasant to use. Legitimate stuff gets buried as there is so much more stolen stuff.

    I hope other torrent sites follow suit, even just for the ease of use reasons.

  • by T Murphy (1054674) on Thursday November 26, @11:27AM (#30237672) Journal

    The judge ruled that Mininova is not directly responsible for any copyright infringements

    After seeing the Google/Italy article, it's nice to see that sanity holds elsewhere.

  • by Chris Tucker (302549) on Thursday November 26, @11:34AM (#30237730) Homepage

    Mininova included far too many torrents on private trackers. Sort of defeating the purpose of BitTorrent, actually.

    No great loss, all things considered.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dr. Spork (142693)
        I agree in principle, but in practice things tend to be less elegant. I expect to see an increase of private trackers, because their hosts will not be the huge, tempting targets that Mininova and TPB were. This means that we'll all join exclusive, secret societies online and share files that way. It's not more egalitarian, etc., but it's probably more sustainable and seems more like a bunch of overlapping communities, which is sort of nice.
  • by DJCouchyCouch (622482) on Thursday November 26, @12:07PM (#30237990)

    Mininova is gone!

    If only there'd be some kind of alternative! I guess I'll just have to rely on sumotorrent, btjunkie, eztv, fenopy, isohunt, seedpeer, torrentz, torrentbox, torrentdownloads.net, torrent portal, torrentreactor.net, torrentreactor.to, alivetorrents, demonoid, boxtorrent, animelab, animesuki, kickasstorrents, torrentplaza, movietorrents, torrentomega, flixflux, overget, superfundo and all the other sites I can easily find on google by doing a simple search.

    I hope I'll be able to survive!

  • I'm curious... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by naasking (94116) <[naasking] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday November 26, @12:23PM (#30238138) Homepage

    ...how can Mininova not be liable for any copyright infringing links, but still be ordered to remove the links? If they're not liable for that content, then they shouldn't have to remove anything.

  • and as usual... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by v1 (525388) on Thursday November 26, @12:24PM (#30238140) Homepage Journal

    And as happens so often, a judge basically says "Well, technically what you're doing isn't illegal, but I still don't like what you're doing, and people are breathing down my neck to do something about you, so stoppit or we're going to bring the legal system down on you anyway. We may not be able to make it stick, but we certainly can make your life hell in the attempt." Surrender your rights and we'll leave you alone - persist and we'll make you regret it. Wonderful legal system we have here.

    Judges that make rulings like that need to either be re-educated, or removed. Their job isn't to make the law, but to judge whether or not you've broken a law. (except in trial by jury, and then they don't even get that) Whether or not they like what you're doing, or whether or not they think what you did should be illegal isn't supposed to have anything to do with it. If they're more interested in writing the law, they need to give up their bench and run for senator.

    Senators make laws and place restrictions on police and judges. Citizens break laws. Police arrest citizens that appear to have broken laws. Juries (/judges) interpret law and decide if citizens have broken a law. Judges insure a fair trial. Problem here is everyone wants a piece of everyone else's action. Oh if it only weren't for that pesky "separation of powers" thing...

          • Re:i wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by sopssa (1498795) * on Thursday November 26, @12:04PM (#30237960)

            Bah. Remember Suprnova? It is only a matter of time until something else replaces it.

            I've always wondered about this. Pirates get all upset and "they are traitors!" when the website operators give up and move on with their lives under heavy pressure from lots of multinational corporations and governments.

            But when something bad happens to the guys running these websites, everyone goes "bah. someone else will replace it" and everyone turns their back to them.

            Is this a growth some few persons like to fight for on their free time against such a power?

            • Re:i wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Cheapy (809643) on Thursday November 26, @03:36PM (#30239460)

              Pirates already have an entitlement complex. Why would they want to do stuff for the sites they are using?

              • Re:i wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Mr2001 (90979) on Thursday November 26, @09:27PM (#30241898) Homepage Journal

                Pirates already have an entitlement complex.

                No, you've got it backwards.

                Copyright holders have an entitlement complex: they expect to get paid over and over in the future for work they did decades in the past. They think one big hit entitles them to a free ride for the rest of their lives, and they think they're entitled to tell everyone else what they can or can't do with their own property.

                Pirates only want to be able to freely exchange information. The only "entitlement" a pirate feels is the right to communicate. Pirates don't expect other people to change their behavior to benefit pirates; copyright holders do expect other people to change their behavior to benefit copyright holders.

                • Re:i wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by 0ld_d0g (923931) on Thursday November 26, @10:54PM (#30242350)

                  Copyright holders have an entitlement complex: they expect to get paid over and over in the future for work they did decades in the past.

                  What crap. A TON of pirated content happens to be recent movies, games, music, books, etc. Your argument is intellectually dishonest.

                  They think one big hit entitles them to a free ride for the rest of their lives

                  This is BS. Content creators invest millions each year into creating new content. A significant proportion of music,movies,etc are never going to become hits. The major incentive to continue pumping out new content is the hope that one of those investments will turn into a hit and pay off. That is the current business model in existence. The incentive of earning a lot of money seems to work in motivating people to create better content. Pirates are effectively destroying this incentive. Yes there will be people who will continue to create content and give it away for the "love of the art" or whatever (even they need to find a way to get paid). I haven't seen anything that will lead me to believe this is going to be anything but a small minority.

                  Pirates only want to be able to freely exchange information

                  So where are the "information wants to be free"-pirates who are hiring people to create content they like? Then they can exchange this information all day long on their terms. Why is it almost always "information" that somebody else paid millions of dollars to create? What is the percentage of 'legit' content to content violating copyright law? A cursory glance at TPB and other sites leads me to believe little to no popular content on those sites is of the legit kind.

                  • Re:i wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

                    by Mr2001 (90979) on Friday November 27, @03:44AM (#30243680) Homepage Journal

                    What crap. A TON of pirated content happens to be recent movies, games, music, books, etc. Your argument is intellectually dishonest.

                    No, it's quite honest. Don't you think the people who hold the copyrights on works released this year will still expect to be paid for copies ten or twenty years from now? Why would they act any differently from the people who hold copyright on works from past decades?

                    Besides, expecting to be paid today for work I did a year ago, a month ago, or a week ago is no better. It's still an attempt to enforce a contract on someone who wasn't a party to it at the time. I didn't ask Lady Gaga to record "Poker Face", so regardless of whether I listen to it or download it, why would I have any obligation to pay her for that effort?

                    Content creators invest millions each year into creating new content. A significant proportion of music,movies,etc are never going to become hits. The major incentive to continue pumping out new content is the hope that one of those investments will turn into a hit and pay off. That is the current business model in existence.

                    Yes, it's a stupid framework that barely qualifies to be called a business model. It's like calling "lottery player" a career. The major incentive to continue buying lottery tickets is the hope that you'll win the jackpot... but you probably won't. Why play the copyright lottery when you could be getting paid directly for creating art?

                    The incentive of earning a lot of money seems to work in motivating people to create better content.

                    You know what works just fine as an incentive in every other industry? The incentive of being paid for doing quality work. The best lawyers command a higher rate than the worst lawyers. The best carpenters get more work and get paid more for it. What makes you think artists can't muster up the motivation to do good work without special incentives that involve the rest of us giving up part of our free speech?

                    So where are the "information wants to be free"-pirates who are hiring people to create content they like?

                    They're on sites like Sellaband and Kickstarter.

                    Then they can exchange this information all day long on their terms.

                    Surely you've noticed that they can already exchange any information all day long on their terms. The question is, will content producers adapt to that reality, or will they remain in denial with a business model that depends on being the sole source of copies?

One person's error is another person's data.