TorrentSpy Ordered By Judge to Become MPAA Spy 372
PC Guy writes "TorrentSpy, one of the world's largest BitTorrent sites, has been ordered by a federal judge to monitor its users. They are asked to keep detailed logs of their activities which must then be handed over to the MPAA. Ira Rothken, TorrentSpy's attorney responded to the news by stating: 'It is likely that TorrentSpy would turn off access to the U.S. before tracking its users. If this order were allowed to stand, it would mean that Web sites can be required by discovery judges to track what their users do even if their privacy policy says otherwise.'"
well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
New people discover filesharing every day and how would they know about this ruling?
The other possiblity is that people will just not hear about the news, you could post it on slash everyday (it probably will actually...) and there would always be people who won't have heard.
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
The same way they discovered filesharing in the first place -- word of mouth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The new content is provided by those of us with accounts on private sources, such as newsgroups, ftp, or private torrent sites. It's also provided by the incoming freshman class each year that has new thing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well (Score:5, Funny)
If they try to get you for this, what are they going to do, come after you? To the land where those animals CAME from? I don't think so.
Re:well (Score:5, Funny)
Those things in The Legend of Zelda? Those things are real?!
Re:Deep well (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deep well (Score:5, Insightful)
2. The reason the RIAA/MPAA make the news here is because of their behavior. They sue many, many, many people. Joe Shmoe who owns a record shop in Detroit does not. "Nobody sues no one" is not a news story.
3. You accuse slashdot of picking only stories that make the RIAA look bad, without the stories detailing the harm piracy causes to the little guy. Well, care to cite a few sources?
4. Should the market collapse due to piracy (And I have my doubts to this), big and small, well, that's capitalism for you. Goods were not provided at a cost people were willing to spend, especially ones that are easily replaceable, and the market was not willing to adapt, so it dies. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Note: This is not a flawed equality between copyright infringement and stealing. But capitalism covers both and it's easier to understand with a physical example.
No, that's not capitalism at
Re:Deep well (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, it *could* have been matched or beaten, and yes, there is a way to adapt. Do a bit of research on Bollywood. That's a polar opposite example of the US. Piracy, by comparison, is pretty much non-existent here. There are movies being made, far too much money spent to make them, and all for the hope of being the summer blockbuster, when it is unneccessary. We don't need super-stardom. These companies are NOT guaranteed a profit. Piracy generally occurs because things are sold at a higher price than they need to be. True, capitalism speaks that you should always sell at the highest price any demographic is willing to spend, but...well, I don't have the time nor energy to go into a full-blown econ lesson here. The movie was made for $10mil. It didn't have to cost that much, that was a production choice. (Note - I'm not saying it's right or wrong, simply a choice.) If it costs $5mil, yes, it still costs twice as much as the expense of the pirates, but bear in mind that there's also labor duplication and distribution duplication. The market becomes more competitive, even vs pirates, and as distribution costs approach 0, then the legit option will become increasingly more palatable than the pirated of the same. This is without taking DRM and barriers to consumption into account (which throws an already bleak picture for the MAFIAA in even further turmoil).
I sell legit, Tony Cola for $.75/glass, but in order to buy it, you have to prick your finger at time of purchase. The Cola's pretty good, so people put up with the pricks. Eventually someone across the street manages to make a perfect duplicate of Tony Cola (and in our imaginary world there are no production or distribution costs), they get all of the great taste of sucking on Tony without the pricks. Where do *you* think they'll go?
The answer is clear. Ditch the pricks.
The Pirate Bay (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So hide you IP address:
https://www.relakks.com/?lang=en [relakks.com]
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_networ k) [wikipedia.org]
or both
(Note: I don't care what you say about using TOR in this way. There's nothing you can do about it, and really you want *all* activity - voip, email, surfing - funnelled through it.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Relakks is an excellent solution to this class of problem. TOR is not - It'll be dog slow, and you'll be slowing down other people who have interactive tasks they're trying to accomplish over TOR, like web browsing.
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:4, Interesting)
As much as I hate the douchebags in the maffia [and well actors/singers in general] I respect their right to make a living by selling their productions. If whatever you're pirating is actually worth it to you, find a way to acquire it such that the people who made it still get paid. Otherwise, your "wonderful" solution involves artists [who are at the bottom of the money foodchain] not getting paid.
Why not get a job and just by whatever media you like.
Tom
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:5, Interesting)
You could reword that "...make a living by being paid the licensing fees required by their government mandated monopolies."
Because the only thing I have ever pirated does not appear to be available in the country in which I live. Is that a good reason? If they do not have a mechanism for me to pay them, they can hardly complain about not being paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting paid perpetually for the work you did in 1974 is another thing entirely.
If I write a piece of code that helps my employer do something, I get paid for the amount of time I worked on it. I don't get paid every time my company sells the software, and every time they re-use the code, forever and ever amen.
Artists should definitely get paid when they perform their popular song, which is real work, paid for at the time of service.
Should artists get paid forever for the same 6 hours of work in the recording studio? How is that different from me and my code?
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, do be careful not to step in the sarcasm.
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that with information (which is what digitally stored media is) the price being proposed and paid each time is almost solely for the information itself, which is replicated effortlessly and even communicated in other forms...sung in hymns or scribbled as strings of 1s and 0s on bits of toilet paper.
Tangible products will never have a problem unless organized crime actively pirates hardware (books..etc). Information however, wants to be free. In fact, we never pay for the media, but for the PERMISSION of the seller/original creator to obtain the information on the media, and people get really really tired of asking for permission to use something they have already bought.
DRM and other MAFIAA nonsense attempt to render information as "physical" by hampering replication, but due to the very nature of information, that is impossible. Because of their efforts in restricting our rights as consumers, we are entitled to fighting them by refusing their authority completely.
If you are an artist, I suggest that you stop trying to make your money on information. If you are reasonable and provide your music at decent prices with no restrictions, people will not risk virus ridden undergrounds and instead come to your sources. Still, your real money will be made in the tangible service/good that you can provide, which is your live performance.
Software is a similar but more complex issue not fit for this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy it from the uk [or wherever] then decss it to play it locally."
Which is considered to be just as illegal as pirating it by the RIAA...so what's the incentive? If I were to pirate something I can't get locally I have a chance of being sued. If I were to purchase and rip something I can't get locally I have a chance of being sued. Frankly if they want to treat m
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather see stories about people being unjustly prosecuted with the DMCA [and more so, what we're doing to fix that], than where you can best pirate those anime episodes you love so much.
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy it from the uk [or wherever] then decss it to play it locally.
OMG I R GENIUS.
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:5, Insightful)
But I advance that it's all irrelevant, because regardless of whether it's illegal, regardless of whether it's wrong, it has become so commonplace and so completely defies any attempt to control it that there arguably not much that can be done about it, anymore. So TorrentSpy is ordered to spy on its users -- so what? They'll probably comply and say as much on their website, and people will use some other torrent service instead, stopping exactly no one from file swapping. Or maybe the RIAA/MPAA will find some way to kill BitTorrent entirely, which would be a shame. But as Napster showed, this will not stop p2p -- even if it is completely illegal, it will persist. In fact, one could argue that the technology has actually gotten better over the years thanks to the RIAA and MPAA's meddling. Sort of like the hydra -- cut off one head and it grows back two.
At some point, when you're a business, you need to be pragmatic. The law protects you only when relatively few people break it and you can litigate the hell out of those that do, scaring the remaining would-be-ne're-do-wells into compliance. But when 60% (I don't know the actual numbers, but substitute any substantial percentage and the fact remains) of the population is breaking the law, well, you're basically fucked.
All this arguing about whether file sharing is right or wrong -- it's a bit like arguing about whether premarital sex is right or wrong. Many people in the US feel strongly that premarital sex is deeply wrong, not just for them, but for everyone. Ok, it's not illegal -- I'll address legality with another example in a bit -- but the point is: it's not going stop. No matter how you feel about premarital sex, it isn't going to stop, and there's no way -- none -- that you can make it stop. Heck, if premarital sex is alive and well in Saudi Arabia, there's no way that you'd ever have any hope of killing it in the USA.
Or what about prohibition? Drinking is most certainly bad for you -- many people don't realize just how bad it is for you. Alcoholism destroys families, the substance is addictive and harmful, and polite society just shouldn't put up with it, or so the teetotalers said. You know what? They're right. But you'll notice that it didn't make a lick of difference that they were right, nor did it make a lick of difference that the law agreed with them. People didn't stop drinking.
There are lots of examples like this, and I fear that file sharing is just the latest. No matter how you feel about it, understand: it's not going to stop. The RIAA and MPAA are yelling into the wind, and it's time they saw the writing on the wall. As it stands, their business model -- at least with the margins it has historically enjoyed -- is doomed.
What does this mean for the artists? Good question. Like many others, I don't think people are going to stop making music, for the simple reason that people were making music before there was a recording industry and will continue making music if said industry collapsed tomorrow. Movies are a more difficult question -- it costs an arm and a leg to make even a low-budget indie movie, requires the hard work of many people, and the institution of copyright is what makes most of the films we see possible. With music, you can make an argument about people making it in their garages and using the internet to distribute it -- fine. But with film, well, that's a much tougher sell, because so many more people are involved. Perhaps we'll see a resurgenc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure you can justify pirating really old obscure media that is hard to find, but just because something went out of print last year doesn't entitle you to pirate it. You don't suppose if demand went up they wouldn't reprint it?
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that they should change their models, artists don't need labels as much [as they need music lessons that is]. But it's their right to choose whatever model they want.
You have a right not to buy media from companies that are not run the way you want.
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If people like the music they're rewarded with more royalties. Why is that bad? If you don't want to pay the artist then the music isn't worth it to you. Why are
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They might, but the circumstantial evidence does not support that theory. Of course, the problem may be that most artists sign away ownership of their music to the RIAA in order to get a recording contract. In this situation, you can make a strong case that royalties hurt diversity, since record companies are looking to maximize royalties by producing music that is closest to popular (best selling, greatest producer of royalties) music.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because you benefit from copyright law doesn't make it a good idea for society. Nor do the existence of business models that depend on it justify it. If there were no copyright, things would be different. The question isn't if people would have to adjust - obviously they would. The question is this: would the overall benefit to society be greater?
Many people who receive copyright royalties think that they have some sort of natural right to those royalties. A right to get paid long into the future for
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. The content of artistic works and land are completely different. My opinions about them are not related.
I mean that there are other business models, that would lead to more of some kinds of art and less of others. We'd get less artificial pop songs and more remixes. Less high budget action movi
Re: (Score:2)
I see few objecting to anyone making a living by selling their productions. I do see objections to anyone controlling what anyone else may produce.
Increasing Bill the Chairmakers ability to collect revenue by forbidding anyone else from making similar chairs isnt a sane free market policy. The fact that immaterial products are easier to copy doesnt change the basic premise just as the development of a chair-duplicator would suddenly make
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't like the media, don't buy it. But don't pirate it either.
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:5, Interesting)
most of the music I like, except for a couple of flukes, isn't on Torrent or P2P.
What I do use shareaza (P2P) for is to make up for living half the year someplace where I only have dialup; shareaza works better than getright. Since I retired from the network biz, i'm also kinda a busy amateur photographer, CGI "artist", and 3d object designer, I throw my stuff out in the world using P2P, to keep my bandwidth bills down on my website. I sell some stuff at renderosity.com and a few other places...and I've seen my for-sale stuff on P2P. I'm not bothered by it. it's free advertising, and I've had people purchase my stuff then tell me that they tried it from P2P, liked it, so they bought it. I suppose the possibility exists that i'm losing sales in this way, but I really doubt it.
I'm not a Evil money grubbing pig, so maybe that explains my attitude... but P2P is the perfect way for a lot of markets to advertise. Bands should see music downloading as a way to advertise their gigs, or other value-added product that they actually get a fair chunk of the proceeds from.
How about this; if a band, lets say somebody who isn't famous for trying to jail their fans, put up on their band website a simple little paypal button next to a list of their songs; they could ask for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:4, Insightful)
Here are another few "rights" I think it is my option to exercise:
I think I have the right to download, as MP3's, tracks from my extensive vinyl collection.
(Note: if I was technically unable to rip from vinyl to digital, I would feel bad about downloading the MP3. I don't know why I have that idea. but as my goal is to spare the vinyl, I don't feel bad about it)
I think I have the right to download MP3's for CD's I've bought that are damaged or don't work.
I think I have the right to download a copy of anything I purchased, as long as I retain the original product. I've bought games that have malware copy protection (starforce, et al) and the only way to play the game is to download the pirate version.
Now I understand that what I think I have the right to do, and what the law says I have the right to do, seems to be different. But as my father once told me, "there is Right & Wrong, and there is Lawful & Unlawful. they don't mean the same things"
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:5, Insightful)
It basically boils down to, if you want the damn product pay for it. If your favourite artist signs with a label, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT. Who are you to say "because you signed with, say, EMI, I won't pay for your music?" You can vote with your dollars. If labels piss you off so much, don't buy [or pirate] label owned music. Only buy truly indy music.
People who pirate label music "to stick it to the man" are just hypocrites.
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:5, Insightful)
Throughout most of human history, music flourished without any copyright. If the MPAA/RIAA had their way, even humming a tune would be a copyright infringement with micropayments, instead of just something people naturally do - which is, by the way what music is - something people naturally do.
There's nothing to stop you from going on tour if your music becomes popular - and the more people "pirate" it, the wider the audience for your tour gigs. Its why people want their stuff to get lots of air play, right?
In the previous century, a large part of the cost of each copy of music was the physical production and distribution (pressing each copy, shipping it to warehouses, then to wholesalers, then to retailers). Those costs are gone, but the price hasn't gone down to compensate.
Now consider the production costs. There is no way that any music CD ever produced costs as much as a blockbuster movie. And yet, the movie on DVD costs about the same as, and often less than, the music CD. Why? If a move costs $100M to produce, and a music cd $1M, shouldn't the music CD cost a lot less?
Must be the crack math skills of those RIAA accountants. Or just the crack. A song is worth a few cents in todays economy, not a buck or two.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:4, Insightful)
"Throughout most of human history bittorrent did not exist."
And what does that have to do with anything, except to show that most people believe that the current "mode of distribution" of the RIAA/MPAA is obsolete, overpriced, and in need of some good competition?
A song is not worth a buck. Maybe a nickel
- movie at $100 million to produce, 2 hours of entertainment, and you can buy a copy of the DVD, including DVD case, for $7.99 5 years later
- music - 20 songs, $1 million to produce, 15 songs (10 or more crappy), and 5 years later they still want $1 a song or $15 for all 15 - no madia, no case.
If movies were priced like music, your movie dvd should cost $800.00 per copy. In reality, the RIAA is using the "monopoly what the market will bear" pricing scheme - and bittorrent sites break that artificial monopoly.Most songs aren't even worth a buck. A lot of the stuff being "traded" isn't even available to most people, so its not like anyone's losing any revenue, anyway. Both the RIAA and MPAA should get over it, and find a different economic model.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
your "wonderful" solution involves artists [who are at the bottom of the money foodchain] not getting paid.
Artists actually have a revenue stream the record companies don't tend to decimate; it's called the "gig".
That seems fair, fuck the sound engineers, recording studios and EVERYONE ELSE who actually works in the recording of music
Look at the credits for an album (if you actually own any) and you will see how many artists work on a CD who aren't the band or the label.
People constantly use the "well artists have the gigs" defence when pirating their music, I can't think of a better (and more frequently used) example of 'convenient ignorance', your argument works only if you forget how music is actually made.
If
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:5, Informative)
No, DRM won't go away even if suddenly all people stopped pirating music and movies. DRM is an effective* way of preventing format shifting and personal copying, so that you have to buy the same content several times if you want to have it available in several places at once, like in your computer media library, in your portable player, in your car, on your phone, etc. If everyone just stopped pirating, the content companies would simply say "thanks for all the extra money" and keep the DRM in place.
*= Effective against casual copying and format shifting, not uncrackable for the determined cracker.
Question. (Score:5, Funny)
My neighbour stopped pirating because he didn't want DRM. Unfortunately, when he drank the rooster blood, the moon wasn't full and no matter how many times he shouts "DRM BEGONE FOR I AM PURE!", the DRM refuses to vanish in the usual red puff of smoke.
Any ideas on what he should do next?
Thanks!
This may surprise you, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
So the only harm they might suffer is if recordings aren't made at all.
Guess you took that stupid brain washing ad they stick before movies too seriously?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That seems fair, fuck the sound engineers, recording studios and EVERYONE ELSE who actually works in the recording of music
No one is leaving out this group of people. They were all paid for their time at the creation of the album, and do not earn royalties on future sales. Their relationship to the music is as contractor only; their income does not depend on me buying the album.
I suppose an argument could be made that if the record companies don't make any money, then they won't be able to afford to pay the sound engineers and other such people for future recordings. To that, I say bullshit. If you can show me even one single
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure bands pay their sound engineers and stage hands when they tour. You're talking about traditional studio produced music, an artifact of the recording industry's history of making the cost of entry too high for unsigned musicians. If you want to record
Re: (Score:2)
And frankly I think it's worth saying. Otherwise, we'll have an entire generation growing up thinking that the internet is magical and everything is suppose to be free. Then when they GROW THE FUCK UP and try to get a job they'll learn that people pirating their works isn't so much fun.
Tom
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This friend also buys music, either directly from the artists or in CDs. The fact is, I've never heard the vast majority of those bands played on the radio, or locally(since, y'know, they're from entirely different continents and I don't live in a major metropolis).
Most of this stuff is pretty difficult to find to buy anyway, but if I decide I really really like that new Architecture In Helsi
Neat move (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is to say, game, set and match, MPAA.
rj
Re:Neat move (Score:5, Informative)
Both europe and asia have more users online than north america at this point. When it comes to the internet, populationwise we are shrinking in power.
Anecdotally, most of the innovation I see in web design recently comes out of Sweden. I actually think that other countries might (if not already have already) surpass the US in terms of net export of brainpower, invention, and developmental progress (as opposed to hardware progress). Not only with our national deficit, but with this trend.. Well, I'm not an analyst.
Anyway, actions like the MPAA's (if indeed TorrentSpy decides to cut access to the US), while relatively minor in the scope of things (there will always be other trackers) is evidence of a trend of self-sanctions. Instead of us putting economic sanctions on other countries (iraq, cuba), our actions are causing other countries to effectively sanction us...
Re:Neat move (Score:5, Interesting)
Nominal Growth or realt growth? (inlation corrected or not).
Does this "analysis" take into consideration the fact that the US accumulated huge exterior debt (and hence will have to pay interests on those)...
Did you take into account that the Euro/dollar exchange rate has steadily decreased (the Euro has appreciated)...
Did you take into account that most of the European population is more risk avers then the Americans, did you take that risk aversion into account in your analysis?
Are people happier in the US then in the EU?
You know, as an economist, I sometimes wonder why people have such Friedmanian views on the economy...
In the end, it doesn't matter if the US has a bigger economic growth then the EU, what matters is that _both_ economies do well. We're talking about how well people live here, not the level of two players in some game...
If economy (and hence the well being of the population) was just about having big numbers, do you really think there would be so much debate in the economic theory?
Quit Crying!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Quit Crying!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quit Crying!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Either that or someone is really digging a hole in their garden.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a reason funny doesn't get the karma bonus, it's to encourage GOOD DIALOG, not one-liners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that a nice time to be alive?
Less self-righteous "freedom fighters" who don't understand the true meaning of civil disobedience.
Less harebrained ISP throttling methods attempting to manage out of control P2P bandwidth.
No anti-piracy warnings before the showing of films in the theater.
A vibrant, helpful, and well-oiled USENET community.
(ok, so maybe that last one never existed.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The fact is torrents are mainly used by students, the less well of or the damn right stingy, and no matter what you do to these people no will not part money unless they have to, either because they can't afford to. The stingy people you
Re: (Score:2)
There have been 119 million downloads of LimeWire from Download.com. 45 million downloads of BitComet. 15 million downloads of SmartFTP. 1 million downloads of Xnews.
The back corners of the Internet - accessible through software only a Geek could love - are fading from memory. If you ever knew they existed.
Privacy policy (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, I heard in some countries, they can tap the phones if they get a court order, even though the privacy policy of the people talking says otherwise.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Surely it's the privacy policy of the telecom that's the issue in the example of a phonetap. If this order were allowed to stand, it would mean that Web sites can be required by discovery judges to track what their users do even if their privacy policy says otherwise.
Also, if TorrentSpy are forced to monitor users, what's to prevent them from chang
This ruling won't stand long, for numerous reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
You're referring to wiretaps placed on specific individuals. This is very different.
Here this judge has ruled that the equivalent of wiretaps be placed on all customers of this company, regardless of their standing, oblivious to all issues of privacy, and at the behest of another corporation rather than a government agency. It is quite without precedent.
But this ruling won't stand for long, is my guess.
Every company wishing to undermine its competitors could demand that they implement similar internal monitoring to ensure that there is no infringement of their copyrights. For example, Microsoft could demand that all fileserver transactions in named large corporations be monitored and their logs be made available to MS in support of suits for infringement of Windows and Office copyrights.
In that direction lies madness, even worse than the current one. It's so grossly anti-competitive and so utterly dismissive of privacy considerations that it'll get overturned pretty quickly, I would guess.
In fact, that judge is going to get severly panned for a whole raft of reasons brought out in this thread. His ruling really verges on the incompetent. Or of course, it could be much worse than simple incompetence --- this does smell a bit of corruption, not necessarily driven by MPAA dollars but by old-boy network handshakes with their lawyers.
Pretty grim all 'round, even by the US's rapidly collapsing standards.
Re:This ruling won't stand long, for numerous reas (Score:3, Interesting)
In that direction lies madness...
You know, people really don't talk this way anymore, and that is a shame. Common discuorse vocabulary has lost most of its verve and spice, as we aim for ever more dull verbal constructions that, above all, avoid emotional reactions in our communicative subjects. I know this verges on off-topic, but I think that 'madness' is an appropriately gravitic and perjorative term for what most would simply describe as unfortunate or lamentable, even if they truly felt much deeper
Awww (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Firstly, not everyone is downloading illegal material. I accept that this might account for the majority of torrent traffic but it appears to me that everyone will be penalised for the actions of a smaller group of people, however large that group might be. And it goes someway to explain how you think if you believe that ONLY illegal traffic is moved by torrents. I can download more linux isos by torrent than I would wish to do by http/ftp. There are many books - legally released in electronic format -
Big Brother is Watching (Score:2)
t will not stop torrent traffic, so what has actually been achieved?
Monitoring of legal traffic. For some reason, the Total Information Awareness crowd thinks that's useful. They also think they can get usefull information from torture. That or they might just want to be able to embarrass, humiliate and otherwise abuse people who don't agree with them. Control what it's all about isn't it?
Aren't you glad the USSR was dismantled? Isn't it nice we no longer have police states like East Germany, wher
Re: (Score:2)
The world that you wish for is not realistic and isn't going to happen. There may be a lot of whiners on here, but you are being one of them.
hey (Score:5, Funny)
Proxy servers and IP spoofing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hope they scale well.
Not lawful (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, by the sounds of this, I think the judge could get impeached. Let us hope the ACLU or someone gets involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong conclusion (Score:2)
Why isn't the MPAA being prosecuted for hacking (Score:5, Interesting)
What Pirate Bay got right (Score:4, Interesting)
It was only a matter of time before governments began trying to figure out a way to regulate the Internet. All governments like control and the internet is by its very nature hard to control, and designed to be a nigh bit diffcult because of redundancy, etc. Sure China and Saudi Arabia and other countries try by limiting the number of ISPs and including filters, but people still find a way.
If you want to do something illegal on the net and can find a way to make money at it (the real tragic flaw of Napster), then there are a host of countries that would be happy to host for a percentage. And I'm not sure if anything can really be done to stop that. Trying to stop drugs hasn't worked.
secondary copyright infringement? (Score:3, Insightful)
I really think that with all these torrent-sites providing access to content people should pay for, things have gone too far, but so does going after sites that link to sites that host torrents that provide connection to a tracker to find people sharing the files - and even these people are in most cases still far away from the original source.
Coming soon, the Great Firewall of America (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we've already established that the MAFIAA are DDT and file-sharing sites are cockroaches: all their efforts to kill off the population just drives the evolution of the technology and breeds a better roach. Seriously, without the MAFIAA we'd probably all still be using Napster and complaining about the broken songs.
Where is the endgame here? Does P2P win and the MAFIAA is reduced to paying for a few token arrests and prosecutions? Does it go the route of illegal drugs where p2p is available if you know where to look for it but no intelligent person would run the risk of losing everything with a bust? A lot of casual pot smokers I know have gone that route, they'd love to spark up now and again but they have too much to lose now between career and family, it's just not worth it.
What's kind of funny here is that stuff can go on under the radar for years before it blows up big enough for the media to comment on. Digital content piracy was going on for years and years before we even had broadband. All the porn getting traded over bulletin boards via dial-up was nothing more than scans from porno mags. I can't say there were never any lawsuits filed over this but I certainly never heard of them. And still, this was obscure enough that only the geeks even knew it existed or commonly had computers to download it. The closest most girls ever came to a computer in those days was asking a geek friend to help them type up a report. Filesharing met that perfect storm when more non-geek kids got computers for school, broadband became commercially available, and Napster made the whole process so easy no geek had to explain it. And those broadband speeds meant that images were no longer the only feasible thing to trade.
One thing is for sure, this genie is not going back in the bottle. Our economy is in decline, real earnings are down, we're getting squeezed on gas, food costs, etc. We can't pirate a tank of gas but we can download the latest blockbuster. What do you think is going to happen? I think most geeks here can see the difference in their own consumption dynamics. When I was a teenager, I didn't have any cash so I downloaded all my software. In college, still no cash so I pirated all my anime. And damn, it took a long time to hunt down all the individual episodes of a series. But three hours of effort could save me $150 for the DVD's, well worth the effort. But once I graduated and had a real income, my time became more valuable than what I could save by pirating, it was easier to buy. I don't have to hunt down crappy encodes, then waste time organizing and burning to CD's, etc. But if I was ever reduced to the cashflow of a college student, the entertainment budget would be the first to get cut.
The government tries to do too much (Score:5, Insightful)
What the government *SHOULD* interfere with is price fixing, Mafia tactics, scare tactics, extortion, invading of privacy, breaking the law, etc. Which these bloody people are doing all the time. This what is getting to me, why should any government on earth be allowed to persecute individuals the way RIAA/MPAA and their friends are doing. I do not live in the US, but please please, everyone, do read this Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] and really think about what it says. If what the RIAA/MPAA is doing isn't cruel and unusual, nothing else. When beating and raping people is seen as a lesser crime than copying certain combinations of 1s and 0s, this are both cruel, and soon getting all to usual!
Another judge ... (Score:2)
US Court has Jurisdiction in the Netherlands? (Score:3, Interesting)
Policy law. (Score:2)
Yes, when you enter into a contract you are bound by its terms, but the idea that any policy is immutable is gaining acceptance and seems to be the norm at least on the companies' parts.
Torrentspy has backup (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Boo-hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
After cars arrived stealing buggy whips was legal (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Howto delete torrentspy account (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
World of Warcraft alone has 8 million users. I guess I am missing some cogs.
Re:Umm... there seems to be something missing here (Score:4, Insightful)
I get the impression that these people just can't see another way, don't feel that we, as their customer base, have the right to demand another way. We do, as it happens. We don't want your product on the terms you are offering it. In the past, that would have meant we either did without, or the suppliers changed their product or way of doing business. Nowadays, we can make do with a reduced quality copy of your product whether you want us to or not. And you know what? That's good enough for most of us. The time may come when we all have the bandwidth to receive a full, unabridged, untranscoded version of your product. If you don't have a mechanism in place then to stop us (good luck with that) or a better way for us to buy your product, you're screwed.
So times change: they do, and it doesn't matter whether you want them to or not, doesn't matter whether copyright infringement on a massive scale is morally akin to murder (as some apparently believe.) Doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. I liken the advent of downloading to driving on the expressway. Yeah, most of the people around me are idiots who drive too fast, or too slow, make gratuitous lane changes and other stupid and often illegal moves
As their front organization is run by lawyers, however, it's not surprising that all of their proposed solutions involve the legal system.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have the right to not testify against yourself. However, if you go down to the police station and brag that you just committed a crime, your words will be admissible in court against you. Similarly, if you keep a ledger of all the people you shake down, that ledger can be used as evidence that you committed extortion. Also note that you only have the right to not testify against yourself in a crimi