NEWS: MPAA Angry as a Third of Internet Traffic from BitTorrent.

Originally posted by sardion2000

If done through an encrypted P2P format which by law cannot be decrypted.. well read between the lines.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by sardion2000]

Which law states that an encrypted P2P file can't be decrypted???

Could you cite a source for this??? I'd love to see it!!

That was an interesting article, though...

i dont see how you can be blaming bit torrent, a protocal/software, for all of the piracy going around. Kazaa, napster, etc. all used (at least i think they did, not sure here. all i know is back when i actually had them, i never needed to download bit torrent) ports like http and ftp. Are they going to demand that we shut dont port 80 (http) simply because its been used to transport illegal material? What about the thousands of networks and companies that utilize the ports. Companies like, oh i dont know, Microsoft? Linux? As far as i know, bit torrent is simply another way to transport files from point A to point B. Its like demanding that the US destroy all roadways because they transport criminals.

well, correct me if im wrong.

I wasn't criticizing any program or application... I was merely stating that the violation of a copyright is illegal...

No manner of rationalization will change that fact... The argument that the record or motion picture companies have a lot of money and are greedy does nothing to negate the fact that downloading music or movies that aren't in the public domain violates the law...

oh, im sorry. when i said "you", i was refering to the record companys. Should have been more specific.

EDIT:

also, i agree with your views of the whole piracy issue. while it sucks that the major entertainment industrys are greedy, it will never justify stealing. Simply because the product is a string of 1's and o's, rather than data than can be read off a disk by a laser, does not deny the fact that it is the same product, and will deliever the same results. Taking either one without paying is stealing, simply put.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by aggroskater]

You know, I'd respect the MPAA maybe just a little bit if hollywood had produced any decent movies in the past 5 years.

-koji K.

well buuuuhuuuuhuuu

we are not in control of the internet, OMG! Close it down! Close it down!



i love it

hmm. floppy to irc to http. http to ftp, ftp to p2p, p2p to bittorrent, next big thing looks like it's going to be bittorrent via ssl and no centralised trackers...the harder they come down on file sharing, the more advanced file sharing is going to get. Can't the RIAA and Co. see that they are only making life worse for themselves and hurting their own image?

It's no harder now than it was 5years ago before the crackdowns to find pretty much any piece of digital 'stuff' that you wanted.

Ok so assume by some miracle they manage to kill ALL online pirating, then what? Start going after all the people making no-cd cracks and programs to backup music because it allows you to pirate?

How about out of that $20 billion odd profit you give $10billion back to the artists? I bet there won't be poor artists running around then. Artists(excluding the mainstreet popular ones that make millions) do get the raw end of the stick, but not because of file sharing and pirating, but because of the likes of the RIAA and all the licensing & artist fees they have to fork out.

Only way to mitigate Piracy is to offer a superior service, faster D/L speeds of high quality files for a monthly fee. Apple is rolling out a Movie download service soon and Yahoo is rolling out a Music Rental service for decent prices. The Apple subscription fee will be in the realm of 7-15 bucks a month and Yahoo's service will be 6.99 per month for unlimited downloads, you have to sync it up in order for your files to still be playable. Yes it is still crackable but the average joe will not even bother if the price is right, people pay for convienience and P2P in it's current form is anything but convienient. What I really want is a subscription service for Television shows, maybe make it into an Amazon style of service as in they get a small cut while the companies that produce the art get most of the profits and not the Mega Corporations. I'm all for Artists getting paid but they have been behind the times since well ever, only reason I do it (fyi I do not D/L movies that is just stupid since DVD's and going to the Movies offer a far supiorior experience) Television however is crap as is On-Demand, they better hurry up before they make a completely anonoumous protocol then it would be impossible to stop without Constitionally(and Fair Use) Infringing laws to stop it.

CTO, the answer to your question is in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 2000 signed by Bill Clinton, it's all in there.

[edit on 20-6-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 20-6-2005 by sardion2000]

Ya' know... I read that act when I was researching this topic... I don't think it pertains to files intended for P2P sharing... The act does make it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software...

I don't believe that one could fit a file, encrypted for the purpose of covering one's tracks, into the sense of the law... I'm no lawyer and I certainly could be wrong, however...

Yeah you could be wrong and so could I. I do not know of any court interpretations as of yet but when it happens I'm sure we'll all hear of it. The letter of the law isn't as important as what the court interprets what the letter of the law means, thusly setting a precedent.

The reason I dislike the accosiations is that they have actively tried to stifle technology and innovation by using the strawman of "if it can be used for piracy then it must be locked down or even crimilised to own such hardware"

They made an enemy out of me when they tried to impose a ban on storage medium, fortunately they didn't succeed but they keep trying. If it were up to them the top 1 or 2 companies will have a virtual monopoly over any and all content and that is unacceptable in my view. But lets face it they are not going to stop it, it's been going on for a long time they've tried to sue Radio stations, Cassette makers, and VCR Makers and more recently ISP's, MP3 makers and P2P Companies like Kazaa and Napster.

They don't call P2P a disruptive technology for nothing you know, should we have made the Automobile illigal because it put millions out of work who supported the Horse and Buggy industry? No because it created a whole new market and employed even more people then were put out of work.

I will continue to download Television over the net they will not stop me from doing that, I'm willing to pay for it but they aren't willing to sell it to me and that really pisses me off, sorry but I don't believe 120 $ for a single season of Farscape to be worth it if I'm only gonna watch it once or twice. But they just don't get it...

[edit on 20-6-2005 by sardion2000]

You're probably right that laws will not stop file sharing of music or movies but that's not the core of the issue... The simple fact is that it's a violation of the copyright that protects the work...

The technology merely makes the illegal act easier to perpetrate... We know now that it's not illegal to have a file sharing program ( I don't believe it ever was... ) and that making the files available isn't distribution but the act of moving them to another computer is...

This does not constitute an attack on the technology but on the use that it's put to, as far as I can tell...