It isn't 'technically' different, except the radio and TV have legal rights to 'distribute' the artwork via their media

So why don't the artists give bittorent the rights? Because it doesn't have commercials?

So why don't the artists give bittorent the rights?

Well...they 'could' ... if people somewhere paid royalties....either the downloader or the bittorrent 'facilitator'...as long as someone did...

Point of the article is....this WILL NEVER happen in the case of the Star Wars movie....Lucas owns TOTAL rights and is hardly likely to allow distribution in ANY form or format before the original intended medium...aka Cinema Release...

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

Bakerstreet is right. If you take their argument a couple of steps further you step into the realms of Orwellian thought crime. There is no comparision to be made between Napster and Bit Torrent, yes they are both P2P but so what?

Bit Torrent may well have been designed in order to circumvent the laws and intervention but again so what. Thats just smart and clever thinking.

If the laws need to be changed in order to support their position then that is what they must do. But as it stands they have veto rights that in any other legal context would be ripped to shreds. They are getting away with exerting powers that they simply dont have. Its a disgrace.

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

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

These industries have lobbied for years to buy themselves a weapon in the form of the US justice system, and they don't have to follow the same rules as other people.

I saw Larz Ulrich, in front of Congress, state openly that Napster hosted their songs on their servers. Not a single person asked for clarification, no one disputed it. The laws that were passed were just passed on such say-s0. All those finer points were glossed over with lies, and the legislators assumed they were addressing black-and-white piracy. In reality, they weren't, and the laws you talk about are much more a threat to personal freedom than anything in the Patriot act. They allow COMMERCE to police us, and allow corporate America to decide what our freedom of speech or expression en

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

i really had a difficult time deciding what not to cite here because you really nailed it. (anyone who saw only part of this at first will hopefully understand that ju wasnt similarly constrained and decided to keep me from quoting as much as i wanted)

i'm not sure the patriot act is any better or worse. alone or together they're equally threatening. both seem to me obvious products of the political climate created by the current administration (i doubt you'll agree).

one more proof that flawed policies aren't improved solely by virtue of privatization.

It used to be thought that people who use VCRs to record movies should be punished, but then the movie industry found a way to make money off it.

exactly. 

truly ironic that an industry claiming to be 'creative' seems to have no ability to envision alternatives to a 100 year old formula.  as recently as the mid-80s, prudent studio flacks avoided the subject of vcrs if at all possible. like railroad executives who, as levitt claimed, forgot they were in the transportation industry, film and music marketing people continue to believe they're in in the theatre/record store business.

luckily for the music biz, apple jumped in and developed a new model that seems to be working.  i just read about a group represented by morgan freeman and a former studio lawyer who are trying to sell something similar to studios.

two things worth mentioning here:

a. my bittorrent sources are still alive, well and seemingly unconcerned. 

b. it aint as if gonzalez didn't make a speech in the past 2 weeks in which he said the fbi would be focusing primarily on groups that made films available before they were released.  

Here's the difference between recording shows and downloading copyrighted work: television is made available to anyone with a television set, and cable is available for those who steal it. It was ruled that recording a show and watching it later, "time-shifting" as it came to be called, is covered under the fair use clause of copyright laws. those that used bittorrent and napster and other P2P software to download copyrighted content did not pay for it.

However, I think that the RIAA and the MPAA have managed to get one of the worst laws ever created passed, which is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Not only does it make it illegal to bypass encryption of any kind, it is illegal to even discuss the means by which to bypass encryption.

One notable case of this being a bad thing is in the case of HDCP, which is an encryption for dvd players and high definition devices that employ DVI and HDMI outputs. Now, all devices with such outputs and inputs must have this technology, or they will not work together. I find that annoying for other reasons, but the fact is that, HDCP can be cracked using trivial methods according to a very prominent software programmer from somewhere in Europe. However, Sony, the developers of the technology cannot figure out the problem, and he cannot even tell them, as it is in violation of the DMCA.

You might think its silly for him to be afraid, but several foreign programmers have been arrested upon arrival in the US for work done in their home countries which could be used to get around encryption.

The RIAA and the MPAA are controlling our government, and that is not a good thing. Not for the US, not for the citizens of the US, and not for music or movies.

double post

Here's the difference between recording shows and downloading copyrighted work: television is made available to anyone with a television set, and cable is available for those who steal it. It was ruled that recording a show and watching it later, "time-shifting" as it came to be called, is covered under the fair use clause of copyright laws. those that used bittorrent and napster and other P2P software to download copyrighted content did not pay for it

huh? im not sure what you meant to say vis a vis tv sets and cable but some of us don't steal cable. 'fair use' doesn't involve paying anything to anyone.

advertisers pay for broadcast and non-premium cable shows.

[skipping the previous discussion and returning to the initial post]

My only gripe with this is that the press makes it seem that there is a network called "BitTorrent" that exists to distribute warez which is being shut down. What is exactly happening is, ofcourse, very different. But this is how the decision makers upstairs get their info and this is thus how misconceptions come into existence.

Ok, seems lines are getting blurred here over what actually happened.

The FBI is not going after the BitTorrent technology, they're going after the tracker sites, which facilitate piracy by providing a consolidated list of illegal torrents with the express purpose of making it easier for people to download illegal content.

This is like the case against Napster, indirect infringement (which is borrowed STRAIGHT from our Patent laws which go back a looong ways). It has nothing at all to do with the Betamax case. If this mirrored the Betamax case, they would be going after the technology at the core, they're not.

As far as fair use and TV broadcasts go. TV stations pay for the content they broadcast, subsidised by advertising. The content owners receive payment in exchange for limited redistribution rights. When you buy a DVD or a CD, you AT THAT POINT obtain rights of fair use, where you can make personal copies, display the content to your friends (in a non-broadcast form) or lend out your original copy. You don't have rights to the content if you PLAN on eventually buying it. You never have the right to redistribute it.

It's a pretty recent attitude, that if it can be available for free, that it should be available for free. Add to that the growing attitude that if it's online it should be free (see how people are getting mad that the NYT is no longer making 100% of its content free online). There is a middle point here that both sides have to come to. The RIAA/MPAA needs to realize that this is a new and very viable distribution medium, and the average user has to realize that the laws still apply here, that just because it's easy to break the law doesn't mean it's justified.

There's nothing blurred here, zoomba. There's nothing illegal about having a .torrent file. There's no copyright on a .torrent file. And yet people kicked in the doors to this site and shut them down, for possessing or distributing *nothing*.

If they want to prosecute people who host pirated files, more power to them. My ire is raised when posting a simple 'A HREF' hyperlink becomes a criminal act worthy of a falony. Simply saying "This person has that" gets your door kicked in.

The 'facilitating' excuse is silly. Held to that standard Libraries or High School cheimstry classes facilitate terrorism. State sex offender registries facilitate the abuse of sex offenders. Do you really want to live in a world like that?

Do you really want to live in a world so oppressive that it is dangerous to even TALK about crime? More importantly, do you really want to live in a world where corporations draft laws defining your freedom of expression to protect their intellectual property. Careful if you mention a name of a product in your blog, you might be in violation of a trademark. Heaven forbid we write reviews of products or services.

You refuse to see how this is and could be abused. These means don't justify the basically non-existant ends. Piracy isn't stopped by this. There's billions of dollars lost to pirates in Asia who function as storefront businesses with no worries. And they kick in the doors of teenagers? pfft.

Sorry Baker, you lose on this one. It is illegal to facilitate piracy in this way. There are laws on the books that say it, some of them taken from our rather old patent laws. The DMCA is an abuseive law, I'll agree with that... but we have other IP and Copyright laws that predate that that still back this up. Contributory and Indirect Infringement have been around for several decades now.

Your argument about libraries and chemistry classes is way off too. A Library is entirely application-neutral. They offer all variety of information with no indication as to potential use. They are simply a fountain of random information that you dip into and use as you see fit. Same thing with High School chem classes. They teach you the fundamentals of the subject, but do not themselves suggest uses or applications beyond the scientific. A site like EliteTorrents or SuprNova have a very clear intent for the types of .torrents they track. They categorize them by "Appz" "Gamez" "MP3z" "Moviez" etc... These sites are completely separate from the technology. Those who abuse the tech are who are being attacked here.

What got those sites was that they didn't even try to hide that they were providing direct links to pirated software. You can not knowingly contribute to a crime.

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Ouch!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Umm...what? Why?

Zoomba: The nuances you cite are a matter of perspective, and that's why laws like this have always been seen as tools of oppression. In other matters I know you aren't the sort of person who favors blindly trusting authority to make the right decisions.

Instead of the law creating a well-defined standard, whether someone is 'facilitating' is based on the ideals and biases of those who enforce and prosecute them. To YOU a library doesn't have the same intent as a website on, say, bomb making. To far-right wacko book burners, on the other hand, they might say "What other purpose IS there in having such a book..."

So, any law that leaves this much discretion and ability to abuse is shoddy and oppressive, even if it hasn't been used as such.

No one, no where, should ever be jailed for a hyperlink. If I wanted to live in a country like that, I would move to China. Which, I might add, has more piracy than any other nation in the world...

RIAA/MPAA/IP Nazis to come down like a ton of bricks on P2P technology.

Thank you! We are back to agreeing.

If I use a crowbar to steal something does the crowbar maker get arrested? Of course not, so they should stop attacking P2P makers, I think this take down was a good one.

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


Ok, my quote button's not working, and it won't let me italicize either, so your quote's gonna hafta blend in, baker.

What pissed me off about Metallica's role in bringing down Napster is I remember Metallica's days as a supercharged garage band in the mid-80's. I wasn't a huge fan, but had several friends who were, and they traded home taped cpies of Metallica with other friends, basically a very low tech version of what Napster offered. In short, Metallica's popularity was due to the music sharing that Napster promoted, and their actions had the potential of making it difficult for other garage bands to make it big the way they did.

The compromise I would have liked to have seen offered was a "free" section of Napster where copyrighted material that the copyright holder OK'ed for uncompensated release was allowable, but where you could also buy other releases. But because the RIAA is, essentially a union with a stranglehold over artists, they would never go for allowing artists to hand over their music for nothing. Pitiful, if you ask me.

There was no need for compromise, really. The reason they brought Napster down was because they commanded Napster to prevent people from abusing their software. Napster has no busiess policing anyone, that's the police's job. The police weren't equipped, though.

That's the gist of all these laws. Law enforcement, bought off by the music industry, has found itself impotent; unable to pin down the people distributing this stuff. So, they have to make examples of people who are indirectly involved.

We don't burn the village when we can't find the culprit in a free society. That's what these people want to do. They are gonna hang SOMEONE, and they don't care who, as long as it scares people into not sharing media.

That's why little 12 year olds, old ladies who don't use computers, and people who have been dead for years are facing court orders. The point is not justice, it is fear and oppression by commercial entities using the justice system as their own personal hammer.

Ok, my quote button's not working,

OT: Nor mine for the last two days. I have to type the quote markup in manually. Have they buggered up the script in a recent site change or something? I keep getting page errors.

If I use a crowbar to steal something does the crowbar maker get arrested? Of course not, so they should stop attacking P2P makers, I think this take down was a good one.

Exactly!

Oops. DP

That's why little 12 year olds, old ladies who don't use computers, and people who have been dead for years are facing court orders. The point is not justice, it is fear and oppression by commercial entities using the justice system as their own personal hammer.

yes.  and that is why I call them gestapo!  No reason, no rational, just blind hatred for anything they do not control.

gestapo!

OT: Nor mine for the last two days

Guess it is an upgrade.  it does not work in forums, but does work in the JU site.  Guess we need to upgrade to the pay for version when Brad offers it.

Bittorent seems to now have spy-ware or Ad-ware files.
The article is on eWeek