HBO Attacking BitTorrent 844
DIY News writes "HBO is actively poisoning the BitTorrent downloads of the new show Rome. In addition to an older tactic of offering bogus downloads that never complete, HBO is now obstructing the downloads offered by other people. HBO runs peers that tell the tracker they have all the chunks of the show, but then send garbage data when a downloader requests a chunk. While the bogus peers can be detected, it will take much longer to download shows."
That's Funny (Score:5, Funny)
give it time (Score:5, Funny)
Or as Caesar might say... (Score:5, Funny)
"I came, I saw, I 0wned your BitTorrent tracker"
Of course, after watching a few episodes Rome, I've learned that in Ancient Rome they actually spoke English anyway. Who started this Latin rumor?
Re:Or as Caesar might say... (Score:4, Funny)
I think it was Biggus Dickus, but I could be wrong.
Re:The low bastards! (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, applaud their pseudo-solution to piracy of their show. This action, though not very nice, is a direct result of people trying to jack them of their creativity. While I haven't seen the show, I can comment that the steps they are taking do not interfere with legitimate downloads, nor are they suing everyone in sight.
Those of you bitching about your slow downloads must realize that someone pays for this, and HBO is trying to make sure that if they have to foot the bill, you won't get your downloads easily.
Re:The low bastards! (Score:3, Interesting)
They are probably thinking "Premium cable was a lot easier when all you had to worry about was Captain Midnight [signaltonoise.net]."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The low bastards! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you go online and the entire season will be there to be downloaded. Given time and enough fans the whole run of the show would be available online if HBO didn't do something about it. Why bother paying for HBO if you can get the one or more shows you want to watch online for free?
You can't compare the taping of television shows twenty years ago to the ridiculous level of leeching that takes place today. As Samuel L. Jackson said so well in Pulp Fiction it "ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport."
And most of all every single person who tries to draw the comparison knows it perfectly well.
Re:The low bastards! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The low bastards! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently all those people downloading episodes of Rome seem to think it's worth something. If the show was really crappy nobody would care that HBO is poisoning torrents that nobody cares about, and we wouldn't be discussing this.
Re:The low bastards! (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks, but we got "What a bunch of assholes" the first time around; no need for redundancy.
Re:That's Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
The free cheese whets my appetite and makes me more inclined to buy a half pound of the stuff for later.
That is, of course, if the free "cheese" they give me isn't really a pile of poison poo spray painted yellow.
I really hate when that happens.
Perhaps HBO should consider, instead of interdiction, simply giving the first few episodes away to induce subscription, that is, of course and ironically, if the show isn't too cheesy.
If they don't feel inclined to give me a free sample, at my convenience, I'm afraid I'd be inclined to believe there's something about it they don't want me to know.
Like the fact that I wouldn't want to buy it.
KFG
They are giving away DVD's of Rome (Score:3, Interesting)
I did however watch the sixth episode "regularly" on HBO, so I guess their tactic gained them a viewer. Then I immediately downloaded that episode so I could have a complet
Re:They are giving away DVD's of Rome (Score:3, Insightful)
Sky showed Battlestar Galactica a while back, and though I caught the first few episodes, i missed a couple from around ep5. As BSG is a series that really has to be watched in order I stopped watching it, and started downloading it instead.
Is that wrong? I watch Sky on NTL cable, and there's no video on demand for series (only films).
Now you could argue
Re:They are giving away DVD's of Rome (Score:3, Funny)
'Why?', asks the situational ethicist.
Re:They are giving away DVD's of Rome (Score:4, Insightful)
I have the money. I spend some of it on entertainment services, however, it is not my mission to give it to them. It is their mission to get it from me. I am under no obligation to cooperate. In fact, I rather resist. If you do not I'd be perfectly happy to get a post office box you can send your money to.
Personally I insist on getting value for my money and I am the sole arbiter of what constitutes value for my money. Because it's mine.
There are plenty of free entertainment services available.
Exactly! In fact, I make money by providing these, so I'm intimately acquainted with the phenomenon. When you avail yourself of my free entertainment services you are not my customer. You are my product which I am reselling to someone else. I also provide paid entertainment services, which you would likely not avail yourself of if you had not first seen one of my free services. Yes, I'm playing both ends agains the middle for my own benefit. Welcome to the middle. But if you do not feel you recieve value when I charge you I will lose you as a direct customer. That would make me unhappy.
If you really want to see ROME. .
You seem to have missed the point that I don't. See my first paragraph.
Problem solved.
I don't have a problem. HBO does. See my previous paragraph. I think you might have some issues with the whole buyer/seller relationship. I can't afford to misunderstand this as my income is derived from it directly. Please send money to my post office box.
As for a download on demand service, I'm sure they'd be thrilled to do that if they could be reasonably certain that you could not then redistribute that video to 20,000 or so of your closest friends over P2P.
Well, thank God that their failure to do so prevents that from happening!
Here is the one thing, the only thing, they can be absolutely certain of; media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed. This is an innate property of the business they are in.
If they don't like that they have two choices, 1)Get out of the business. They are no more required to sell media than I am to buy it, 2)Deal with it.
The one who figures out how to deal with it while keeping the customer happy is the one that will still be around and thriving ten years from now.
The customer is control, because their money is theirs.
Deal with it.
I have to, because if I don't I go hungry, not in ten years, but tommorow. Spend a year or two as a street performer. It'll learn ya.
KFG
Re:They are giving away DVD's of Rome (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the supermakets property, and their choice, how they wish to advertise. Similarly, the series "Rome" belongs to HBO (or whoever the relavant copyright holder is). It is not correct to say "it would be good marketing for them to give this away, therefore it is legitamate for me to take some" any more that you could say "it wasnt shoplifting, when I unwrapped the cheese, they regularly give the stuff away". It is THEIR choice, not yours. If you dont want to buy it because they wont give you a free sample, that is your choice. But that doesnt legitamize people who want to download, against the will of HBO. Their marketing descisions are not the same as your entitlment.
Re:That's Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
I am puzzled by the fact that you seem to believe I have made that argument. I have done nothing of the kind. Perhaps you need to go read my post again and try to see what those who moderated me saw.
KFG
Re:That's Funny (Score:3, Funny)
-h-
Re:That's Funny (Score:3)
By writing this sentence as a part of your whole cheese-HBO analogy, you chose to blur the difference between the free samples offered by HBO (not poisoned) and the regular shows downloaded without HBO's consent over bittorrent (poisoned). Equating the two propositions hints that the latter should be allowed since the former is.
No, I think he was equating
Re:That's Funny (Score:3, Interesting)
If you dont want to buy it because they wont give you a free sample, that is your choice. But that doesnt legitamize people who want to download, against the will of HBO. Their marketing descisions are not the same as your entitlment.
The GP, KFG, was not indicating that downloading was appropriate. I believe that the point was that HBO's decision was DUMB. I'll repeat it, too: HBO and all the other companies attempting to control downloads of material that can be legally recorded have th
And here comes the bad analogies. (Score:4, Funny)
The fact that someone compared DLing a TV-show with free cheese-samples, in a somewhat (but definitely not entirely) valid way, doesn't mean you should continue to use it.
First off. Media: digitizable, zero-cost reproducable, non tangeable goods. Cheese: actual, physical, unreproducable goods. Now copying something that inherently reproducable costs noone nothing. Stealing physical goods will result in expenses for the producer or store.
Please stop equating these to fundamental different things. Foe.
Re:That's Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but they don't let you take the whole 10 pound block of cheese home for free.
Perhaps HBO should consider, instead of interdiction, simply giving the first few episodes away to induce subscription, that is, of course and ironically, if the show isn't too cheesy.
HBO isn't selling you a block of cheese, or a single show, they're offering a service where you get a lot of movies (well, a few movies played a lot of times) and a few HBO-only shows. Perhaps your cable operator occasionally runs a free HBO weekend promo.
If they don't feel inclined to give me a free sample, at my convenience, I'm afraid I'd be inclined to believe there's something about it they don't want me to know.
You could probably go to this link [hbo.com] and "watch a clip of the new episode". At your convenience, of course.
Re:That's Funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Which in the agregate is a block of cheese.
That doesn't address the fact that the block of cheese is never given away for free. Your analogy still does not hold.
A clip is an ad, not a sample.
That's a funny distinction you make, since advertising's entire purpose is to whet a customer's appetite for a product or service in exactly the same manner you claim a "sample" is supposed to. You're splitting hairs because you didn't get a big enough
Re:That's Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you still buy the cheese if you could take as much of it as you wanted, whenever you wanted, for free?
Now you are comparing apples.
Re:That's Funny (Score:3, Insightful)
HBO is not giving you a free download, as in your cheese analogy.
HBO is fighting illegal distribution of their material. They do give you a free taste of the show in their advertising. That is the level they feel comfortable giving out.
You downloading the show is like going to the dairy section and opening / eating whatever cheese you want.
They should do like XM and let you get an online account if you pay for the service and download / stream content when you can't watch otherwise. You pay for the stuff
Re:That's Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
My first piece of entertainment journalism (in 1997) was interviewing a VP at Showtime about the upcoming premiere of Stargate SG-1.
From the article (the "Zakarin" quoted was Marc Zakarin, Exec VP of Original Programming):
That said, the "intensity of viewing" is aimed at generating new subscribers and keeping old ones happy. If people shuffle off the shackles of the HBO coil and resort to downloading, how long will HBO keep producing good content?Re:An Open Letter to HBO (Score:3)
The problem with your logic is that it assumies that the content isnt being pirated to hell and back allready. Which it is. Releasing the show online would only allow those who wish to purchase it the choice to do so, as opposed to having no choice but to pirate it (assuming that they intend to download the show one way or the other).
I would gladly stop paying my $20 a month for commercial newservers if I could instead pay $20 a month to an itunes li
Thankfully (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thankfully (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thankfully (Score:5, Informative)
BitTorrent isn't even vaguely anonymous.
Re:Thankfully (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thankfully (Score:4, Funny)
in Russia...you own the Torrents?
ah hmm....oki dokie
Re:Thankfully (Score:4, Informative)
Back when hackers ruled the net (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Back when hackers ruled the net (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Back when hackers ruled the net (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, you're serious? ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!
Yeah, HBO is going to fire someone for preventing the free dissemination of their copyrighted material over the internet. Yeah, sure. Especially a cost effective, directly focused counter to what would otherwise be settled by $300 Per Hour legal departments who might or might not sue the right person. Um-hum.
What HBO is doing is what every business should be doing instead of taking the RIAA's route. HBO is not restricting your right to make copies at home, they are not restricting your archiving of those copies, or even sharing them with your family/close friends. They are not suing BitTorrent, they are not demanding that all P2P software be banned, they are pro-actively preventing the illegal distribution of their material in an incredibly low impact manner. Bravo, HBO.
Re:Back when hackers ruled the net (Score:5, Insightful)
vigilante justice (Score:4, Interesting)
That's called "vigilante justice", and there are laws against it. Maybe HBO's particular denial of service attack on BitTorrent is both harmless and specific in this case, but the next attempt at vigilante justice may end up shutting down the OpenSuSE distribution as a side effect.
HBO's actions amount to computer hacking and denial of service, and they should be treated as such by the legal system. On the other hand, if HBO wishes to claim copyright infringement, they should bring legal cases; nobody other than a court of law can determine whether copyright infringement has taken place.
Re:Mod parent back down (Score:3, Insightful)
This is very similar to banks putting purple ink bombs in the sacks of money robbers demand. Only the money is destroyed, making it useless to the robber. If the robber is cheezed, tuff.
Re:vigilante justice (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not hacking. They're advertising that you can download data from them. If you choose to do so then they'll provide data to you.
That the data isn't what you expect is unfortunate. There's a quality gap but that's not illegal.
They're not connecting to you and pushing data at you. They're not attempting to subvert your PC. They're not executing code anywhere other than their own servers. They're doing very little wrong.
They are declining to play nicely and follow the protocol you're attempting to use. Tha
Re:Back when hackers ruled the net (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Back when hackers ruled the net (Score:5, Insightful)
People are illegally distributing a copyrighted movie, and are BITCHING that HBO is stopping them, by knowing more about the "hackers" game than the "hackers" do.
Go HBO! More power to you, IMO.
I'm getting soooo sick of this sense of self-entitlement... "give me everything for free" attitude.
and who determines that they are right? (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is not whether HBO is (formally) in the right--they probably are. The issue is that whether HBO is in the right, as well as the remedies, are a matter for a court of law to determine. We don't want a world in which companies decide for themselves whether they are in the right and then decide for themselves how to enforce the rights they themselves have determined they have.
I'm getting soooo sick of this s
Re:and who determines that they are right? (Score:3, Insightful)
1.) It's bad if HBO acts as if they are in the right in stopping people from downloading their shows, because we don't want them to act like they are in the right without a court case.
2.) At the sime time, it's good for people who think they are in the right to download HBO's shows, because we want them to act like they are in the right without a court case.
Quid novi? (Score:2, Funny)
Pure BS (Score:4, Informative)
So the whole idea that this will significantly increase download times is complete BullShit!
Re:Pure BS (Score:2)
Re:Pure BS (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pure BS (Score:3, Funny)
No dude, that's on showtime [sho.com]
Re:Pure BS (Score:5, Informative)
It seems to work based on haveing a lot of crap spitting clients connect to the tracker which claim 50-92% complete and then start spewing data to who ever they can. The connecting clients will receive data at about 1/2 kBps. Receiveing 3 bad chunks to ban a ip only to connect to another bad ip will slow you down considerably. Typical torrent has 5000-10000 chunks assumming they have 3000 ip's (easy) thats 9000 bad chunks of bad data they can send doubleing the download time. FYI all ips are in the range 70.85.*.*
azereus! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:azereus! (Score:3, Informative)
And a link. http://azureus.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] Note, it's a Java Bittorrent client.. so all those people that are allergic to Java might want to avoid it.
Re:azereus! (Score:4, Interesting)
this message is brought to you by HBO (Score:3, Funny)
Good and Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
At the same time, this is also good for p2p software. I'm sure it will only result in better algorithms for dealing with tainted peers.
Re:Evolution in action! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, that's my first thought too. The evolution analogy aside, there is another one - drug users. They have a much more difficult task than p2p users. They distribute physical objects, with a much more powerful opponent. Undercover agents, wiretaps, guns, dogs, energy bills monitoring (to detect illegal cannabis greenhouses), whatever. The result? They laugh their asses all the way to the dealer after each "another spec
TiVo (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:TiVo (Score:2)
Re:TiVo (Score:5, Informative)
According to HBO's copyright protection rules [hbo.com], which you enter into agreement with when you sign up for their service, you CAN create a single copy of the show for yourself but NOT distribute it to others. For bittorrent to work though, you have to upload as well as download, thereby breaking your service agreement with HBO regarding not distributing your copy to others.
Re:TiVo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:TiVo (Score:4, Informative)
Re:TiVo (Score:5, Interesting)
Forget to catch a repeat? They push it onto the On-Demand service for subscribers who pay for said service
So after that multitude of opportunities to see a given episode of Rome, who are the majority of people attempting to download the episode? Of course, you'll have some people who forgot to set their VCRs or only have one out of the seven HBO channels available, or who's recording got cut off if they didn't pad it correctly.
But the obvious answer: The majority of downloaders will be people who want the content without paying for it. Hence, people who do not have on-demand access to the content and therefore have no fair use rights to it.
Re:TiVo (Score:3, Informative)
HBO costs like $6 or $7 a month (on top of normal cable/satellite service, obviously). The current season of Rome is 12 episodes. That's three months, or roughly $20 for 12 episodes. That's less than $2 per episode. Is that
Rome wasn't built in a day (Score:5, Funny)
Good things take time, so I guess Bit Torrent users will just have to wait a little longer for legitimate video files to become available if they desperately want to see this show.
Headline misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Headline misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
My Infringement Notice (Score:5, Interesting)
It might be worth noting that I was using Azureus [sf.net] and running PeerGuardian [sf.net] at the time of the download.
I'm running Azureus on a different computer now.
Re:My Infringement Notice (Score:5, Funny)
According to me, 2.4k of 359,196k is 6 ppm (or about 0.000006%), and as a result, is far less than is allowed by fair use (10%, depending on context). As this is the case, I feel fully justified in offering the following statement as payment for the half a frame which was downloaded:
Fuck off, you tit.
Thanks and regards,
Re:Damn edit button (Score:3, Informative)
If one were really obnoxious, one could send fan mail to Mr. Weaver, but I don't know why one would.
Re:Damn edit button (Score:3, Funny)
How can you be so sure, Mr. Smartguy? Maybe he just listed his address with roman numerals (he was downloading Rome, after all). His address was really 010.010.010.010. Think about it...
Re:My Infringement Notice (Score:3, Interesting)
Bittornado (Score:4, Interesting)
prefs -> check [Kick/ban clients that send you bad data]
After at least one failed hash check, the client won't eat any more poison, so to speak.
Don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
1: They've pissed people off, some who may simply download out of spite now, and
2: They're stopping potential customers from seeing their show. I don't have HBO (not sure I can get it here anyway, but let's say I can). So what if I download and episode, realize that I really like it, and want to sign up? Well, they've stopped me from doing that, or at least tried.
So yeah, I just can't imagine how this helps them at all. Of course, I may be way off here, so bring on the torches if you're into that sort of thing.
Re:Don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
"So what if I download and episode, realize that I really like it, and want to sign up?"
Sheyeah, right.
This would put you in that same class of people who download albums off of P2P so that they can listen to the whole thing before buying a copy. While there might be a small percentage of people who do that (certainly not anybody I know -- all of my friends who use P2P do so to save money), it's abundantly clear that most people do things like downloading "Rome" so they don't have to pay HBO to watch it.
"So yeah, I just can't imagine how this helps them at all."
As an aside, the ironic thing is that your post is presently 4, insightful, despite the fact that you used "I can't imagine" twice in your post and even titled it "Don't get it." That's a lack of insight.
Is this is some way a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps "HBO using technology to counter Copyright Infringment". I mean, really, downloading Rome cant be particularly leagal. It is theirs. Surely this is a good thing. I mean, entities have to be able to protect their property. Argue what you will about the terms of copyright (I would agree they are ridiculous). But this is somone trying to protect something which is currently making them money. And they arent suing anyone, either (yet). I for one, hope they can find a technological way to stop people from using BitTorrent to illeagly download theiri intellectual property, as I tend to prefer those solutions to the far nastier ones that are available (see the RIAA).
That's the way it goes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's the way it goes (Score:2)
Re:That's the way it goes (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. They sure do. A copyright that under current rules protects the show for almost a hundred years. Seventy-five years from now, when your dead and your grandchildren are curious about your generation, they can get sued for downloading it, too, just like dear old Grandpa.
There are two reasons I have few problems with this type of filesharing: First, the copyright deck is stacked exclusively in favor of the distributors. This is not how it was meant to be. The
Obstructing? (Score:4, Interesting)
But here, we have HBO obstructing the downloading of their copyrighted material. HBO is obstructing copyright violation. Would you say that a lock obstructs breaking and entering? Or that self defense obstructs assault? Perhaps good server administration obstructs the stealing of private data. Of course you wouldn't say that. It sounds silly. So why is HBO obstructing downloads?
Re:Obstructing? (Score:3, Insightful)
To me this reaction seems like lifting your fist at someone, and shaking it while spewing "I'm gonna get you" through clenched teeth, without really knowing how you're
Re:Obstructing? (Score:3, Insightful)
HBO's Actions (Score:3, Interesting)
heh (Score:3, Interesting)
I love it! (Score:4, Insightful)
In a related story... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to be a thief, don't complain when someone tries to stop you from stealing their stuff. Anyone who complains about this is an immature idiot. HBO spends 10 million dollars to develop, produce, and advertise a show on their premium networks. To recoup the costs, they charge subscribers money. For those that don't wish to subscribe, they sell DVDs in a couple of months, so that you can either buy the DVDs or get them off Netflix or from some other video rental source. HBO makes 20 million dollars from this process. HBO goes on to keep their people employed and continue to make television series and movies.
HBO spends 10 million dollars, and everybody steals their content without reimbursing HBO for any of their costs. 10,000 people lose their jobs because HBO declares bankruptcy.
I know this is an extreme case, but I'm tired of all the whining because a company (or even a person) who produces something that you think is valuable enough to at least steal would like to make some money off of it. Yes, I know they're rich, but if you don't like that, stop buying their product. Why exactly should networks, studios, software developers, or anyone else provide anything of value if there's no benefit to them, i.e. no way to make a living?
I'm a software developer, and if my company doesn't get paid for something, I get laid off.
Grow up people.
This should concern any BT user (Score:3, Insightful)
No, there's still a reason to be worried about this, even if you're a staunch supporter of copyright. This tactic can be applied to any torrent. Today it's HBO interfering with illegal downloads of the show they're trying to sell to subscribers, but tomorrow it could be Microsoft/SCO interfering with legitimate downloads of Linux ISOs, or the MPAA inter
You young pups may not remember it (Score:3, Informative)
And
Don't fucking do it, cocksuckers (Score:3, Funny)
It started with Six Feet Under (Score:4, Informative)
Whether it's good or bad, it's certainly within their capabilities to do so. The danger for HBO is that it is forcing BT clients to evolve in interesting ways to avoid this kind of manipulation. SafePeer anyone?
The raw, honest truth is that anything that is broadcast - via airwaves or cable - is up for grabs. HBO doesn't yet understand that the real money is to be made in licensing - DVDs, soundtracks, decorative "Rome" wall hangings, what have you. That's where they'll need to earn back the $100M they spent on the series, because it's growing increasingly impossible to force people to watch something through a proscribed channel once it has been broadcast through _any_ channel.
It really is copyright infringement (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you justify it morally? On a very small scale, filling in an episode you haven't seen, sure, no big deal. Massive redistribution of an entire series is obviously going to harm HBO, whose only crime was creating something which people like to watch. Do you think that HBO is some soulless bunch of corporate assholes who deserve to get screwed? Where do you draw the line between small artists and these corporate assholes? HBO hires the best screenwriters, directors, actors, and technical people in the business, and the result is the show that you like to watch. Do you think you're benefiting anyone by downloading it for free en masse?
What do you think will happen if no one enforces their legitimate copyright, and everyone has push-button access to free copies of Rome. Fast-forward to a time when most houses in America would have the ability to watch freely downloaded episodes on their TV, as an alternative to subscribing to HBO. Do you think HBO will make money? Do you think they will continue to make high-budget shows when their subscriber base shrinks? Their most likely source of income is incoporating ads into the scripts in a way which is impossible to skip, like references to how well Tide gets their togas cleaned. Is that better than paying for HBO?
The technology isn't wrong. But don't go bullshitting yourself thinking that downloading copyrighted material anonymously and in large quantities is somehow justifiable.
so what (Score:3, Insightful)
*groan* Honestly... (Score:3, Insightful)
We got sick of it and cancelled our cable. We still get a few local stations for news. We rent or buy only the DVDs we want to see. The kids get videos of cartoons for as cheap as 99 cents, and they get to see the *good* cartoons, without commercials. It's cheaper in the long run, more convenient, and HBO has made a habit of releasing their original series complete on DVD, which is the only way to make sense of the entirety of "Carnivale", for instance.
As for HBO, shame on them; they host Bill Maher, and I wonder what he's had to say about this.
Hash collisions (Score:4, Interesting)
this is not a new idea (Score:4, Informative)
- high bitrates
- high bandwidth
- full artist catalogs
except all of they files they offered had been re-sampled like 10x, so the music was equivalent to about 24kbps...
Reasonable to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides all of that, I really don't have a problem with people downloading broadcast TV shows. I honestly think the legal system shouldn't have a problem with it either, since it was broadcast and all. Now, the courts probably would take issue, seeing to how the industry bought so many wonderful laws. But that isn't the point.
The problem here is that
Re:ip baning? (Score:2)
Re:Use Newsgroups? (Score:4, Insightful)
don't talk about usenet.