backtop

Internet Mininova Next in BitTorrent Fight
Michael Barkoviak - August 26, 2009 6:07 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 81 comment(s) - last by tastyratz.. on Sep 1 at 4:10 PM
Mininova is told by local court to remove all copyrighted links

The ruling in a civil court case means that popular torrent site Mininova has to remove all copyrighted material within three months, or the site operators face a fine up to $7.16M fine.

Since Mininova is able to actively filter malware out of the BitTorrent archives, the Dutch court said Mininova could also block copyrighted content.  All tracker files and links to any files that infringe on movie or music copyrights must be removed as soon as possible.

The court case was originally filed by Stichting BREIN, a Dutch antipiracy group with support from movie and music studios.

"The court didn't agree with Mininova's argument that it was impossible for it to find and remove torrents that point to copyrighted materials," according to the legal findings.

Torrent sites have been under increased legal attack, as The Pirate Bay lost in a Swedish court.  Even so, Mininova started removing copyrighted works after receiving takedown notices, while The Pirate Bay refused to take down copyrighted material.

Despite its immediate removal of files, the court said Mininova's efforts weren't enough, and site operators should work under the assumption all commercial media available through the site are copyrighted.  Furthermore, a random selection of files listed by Mininova indicated as may has 80 to 90 percent of them were copyrighted.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
You can take down a symbol
By scrapsma54 on 8/26/2009 6:45:06 PM , Rating: 5
But you cannot take down an idea.




RE: You can take down a symbol
By cubby1223 on 8/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: You can take down a symbol
By GaryJohnson on 8/26/2009 8:35:54 PM , Rating: 5
The idea...
quote:
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition. - Thomas Jefferson


RE: You can take down a symbol
By alifbaa on 8/26/2009 9:11:25 PM , Rating: 5
In spite of my own rampant participation in file sharing, I have to say that your attempted parallel is ridiculous.

Thomas Jefferson was referring to the exchange of high ideas for the betterment of humanity.

You are referring to the free exchange of the Simpsons Season 20, episode 17 so that it can sit on your hard drive unwatched along with another 750GB of data.

Now, I'm no fan of the RIAA and I generally view P2P as a victimless crime, but you sir are no disciple of Thomas Jefferson.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By Azsen on 8/26/2009 10:01:15 PM , Rating: 4
I think the quote is well placed actually. Created information should be freely distributed to everyone across the globe. The concept has been around for some time, it's called a library. In a library you can hire out a book, movie, CD, magazine or anything FREE of charge as long as you need it. The new 21st century version of 'the library' IS the internet. Everyone else just doesn't realise that especially the MAFIAA - their sole plan is to make money for their greedy corporations.

If the MAFIAA (representing book writers, song writers and movie producers) want money, then they have other avenues of collection: movie theatres, book stores, CD stores etc. This gives consumers a permanent copy of the information for them that they own. By the time I've been to the movies then hired the film out on DVD I've already paid twice to watch the same film. This to me is double dipping and I still don't own my own copy of the film that I can watch whenever I want.

Most people downloading from the internet just keep a collection of the information for reference. It probably just sits there on their hard drive so they can reference it if they need it. They're most likely not sitting there all day re-watching the same movie over and over again. It's no different if I lived my life going to the library every day. I have unlimited access to all the books, music, movies and stuff that I want. Not to mention that it's all for free. It should be the same if you have an internet connection.

If the MAFIAA want more money, instead of basing it on individual consumers, they can start charging a levy to the Governments of countries. Those countries can then put a levy charge onto each ISP which a portion of will then be passed down to consumers when they pay for their internet connection. That way any movie or song on the internet can be downloaded free of charge without fear of prosecution. Just like I can go to a library and not have fear of going to jail for reading a book. This gives the MAFIAA a better strategic plan of collecting revenue.

That's my solution anyway.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By Alexstarfire on 8/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: You can take down a symbol
By dark matter on 8/27/2009 2:25:15 AM , Rating: 3
Actually I can name lots of "Entertainment" that is free. You might to check your source on that. Or, get out a bit more.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By Jalek on 8/27/2009 2:45:55 AM , Rating: 5
People should be recompensed for their work. If you look at the considerations made in early copyright law, the concept that a person could write a play (closest thing to a movie at the time) and just sit back and be paid for it for 30 years was foreign to them. They thought it should be released for derivatives and such much earlier than any corporation today.

A perpetual corporation was also foreign to them, as many of the early politicians warned of corporate money usurping the people's rule, but that's just crazy talk.

I understand "the betterment of society" as they stated it is now considered to be just a code word for Communist takeover, but at the time, they thought it possible.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By Amiga500 on 8/27/2009 4:12:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
People should be recompensed for their work.


Indeed they should.

Now... what do you think would be a realistic level of compensation?

$20 million a movie? I don't f**king think so!

For far too long have certain groups of people been paid far beyond what their real input to humanity is worth. Actors are one, sports stars are another. Some of the money thrown around is ridiculous.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By FITCamaro on 8/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: You can take down a symbol
By jwm on 8/27/2009 9:24:54 AM , Rating: 3
If watching TV, which I have paid for, at a later date from when it was broadcast is a punishable offence then Tivo and the DVR will be next on the hit list of the MAFIAA. I also use bit-torrent to capture TV shows that I have missed or want to watch again. It is more convenient then recording for myself and I do not consider it immoral.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By pxavierperez on 8/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: You can take down a symbol
By davekozy on 8/27/2009 1:57:53 AM , Rating: 3
A problem with the library analogy is that the library pays for all of these works. In fact we pay for them since libraries are funded with tax dollars and college tuition. Very few things are really free. Also, only one copy of the work is being used at a time whereas once it's online the same copy can be used by everyone.

Your idea at the end where the governments pay an internet library fee is kind of interesting. I don't know a fair way to come up with the numbers though maybe they could base them on bandwidth used. I'm sure some countries pirate more than others.

It's the fed's job to regulate interstate and international commerce and information is a commodity with real value and the internet is certainly international. Since the laws are different in every country there would have to be an international agreement to create and enforce the rules and fees.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By Jaybus on 8/27/2009 2:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the library is not a proper analogy. The Internet is not free either, so it is more like a used bookstore. When I sell a book to a used bookstore, I don't send a check to the publisher. Neither does the used bookstore send a check to the publisher when they resell that book to someone else. But, if the used bookstore makes copies of the book and sells them, then it is violating the copyright. What if the used bookstore made copies of the book and gave them away? Nobody made any money. This is the crux of the debate. Lots of people might show up at the used bookstore to grab a free copy. If the bookstore were subsequently shut down for their violation, would the same number that would have shown up for a free copy run to a new bookstore to purchase the book at full retail price? Not hardly. If all downloading ceased, would the publishers then sell a legit copy for every one that would previously have been downloaded? No way. The losses from p2p downloading are drastically overstated. Another way to put it would be that they drastically overestimate their product's worth. Many people will watch or listen to anything if it costs very little (the cost of Internet). What will they watch or listen to if they have to pay full retail?


RE: You can take down a symbol
By tmouse on 8/31/2009 8:01:41 AM , Rating: 2
Your argument still fails on two points. First the internet is not like a used book store, again there is only ONE copy that can be used at a time. Your correct, that if everyone who wanted to read that book was patient enough to wait their turn there would be no further revenue to the copyright holders but we both know that is totally absurd. While you are correct in the assumption that if your "pirating book store" went out of business, everyone who used it's "services" would not go out and pay for one some/many would. You cannot possibly believe that the only people who would use it were people who would not pay. I would be willing to bet MOST of the people who do pay would stop if a free source were available. Do you think people pay just because it's the "right thing to do"? It doesn't matter if the book store makes money or not the fact is it absolutely takes money away from people who DO have a right to it, the amount of loss is debatable the fact of the loss is not.

The second point is your assumption of your entitlement to own a copy of anything you want if you ever pay a penny for it in any form. If you by a DVD then you are entitled, if you wait for a friend to lend you theirs then I also feel you can watch it (here I clearly disagree with the copyright Nazis who feel you do not have the right). Again while you have it your friend will not so they are surrendering their rights to you, but they can demand them back. If you pay to see a movie you are only paying for the right to see it ONCE. The theater probably has a FAR better sound and larger screen so you are getting something you cannot get at home and in most cases it is a social gathering place. If you watch it on TV you get commercials and again it's not at your leisure unless you can copy it, TiVo and others pay for your ability to do so. No one has the right to have a personal copy of any copyrighted item "just because" or "for reference". I think the copyright holders are going too far and eventually we will end up with a pay for play system but the other extreme is equally wrong.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By SignoR on 8/27/2009 2:18:39 AM , Rating: 5
While I agree with your first statements, your solution is atrocious.

A particularly innovative and free market approach to digital content distribution for the 'mafiaa' would be as such.
All of these media associations get together and host their own torrent tracker. lets say ... www.legaltorrents.com
You sign up and have an account linked to some sort of payment method. You can then buy a movie, song, music video... etc(further known in this post as 'digital widgets'). You then receive a .torrent file for your purchase that is linked to your account where you can download the file as any other torrent. Now comes the fun part. A major problem with content distribution from say ITunes is the cost of hosting the servers. By using the tried and true P2P method of distribution the profit margins per digital widget increases. By saving the "greedy corporations" on server costs by seeding you can be granted store credit by any system they see fit.

The ultimate beauty here is that if the incentives to seed are great enough people will flock to legaltorrents.com to get cheap digital widgets. Because of the incentive to seed, speed will be outstanding, probably enough to saturate your downstream bandwidth. Another positive effect(in the eyes of the 'mafiaa') from the incentive to seed on legaltorrents.com is that seeders would prefer to seed only on legaltorrents.com because they get little to no benefit for seeding on mininova or any other public tracker. Therefore seeding on other sites would fall creating a lack of supply.

From the leecher's point of view, if the price for the digital widget is low enough that a leecher values the speed of download above the cost of the product he will switch from Illegaltorrents.com to legaltorrents.com.

By using the entire internet as capital to increase production, everyone is better off. Content providers have a simple cheap way to distribute their content and still get paid for it. Consumers have a fast easy way to obtain content at a cheaper price than previously available. Hell, as retribution the 'mafiaa' could enlist the help of the TPB.com fellows. Instead of going to jail they could set up their site and get it running. EVERYBODY WINS!

This is only one suggestion to stop the legal madness. It probably would not be perfect; knowing these guys they would likely slather all content with some form of DRM, but hey its still better than the current model of 2 million dollar suits.

Also an interesting article about IP rights.
http://mises.org/story/3631


RE: You can take down a symbol
By Starcub on 8/27/2009 9:05:26 AM , Rating: 2
I can think of two potential problems. First, distribution using Bittorent would be risky, as you are dependent on independent seeders. Second, Bittorent can effectively be crippled by ISP's that block the technology, or implement bandwidth caps, or charge based on bandwidth use.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By STILTO on 8/27/2009 10:29:24 AM , Rating: 3
If his idea did work then the MAFIAA would be on our side sueing the ISPs!


RE: You can take down a symbol
By SignoR on 8/27/2009 10:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
so your first problem is in fact a non issue. There has to be an original seed for all data. In the case of normal torrents you have the problem where the original seeder may stop seeding leaving the torrent to die. In this case the mafiaa server will have to keep copies of all the digital widgets. I didnt say that the server costs would be nil, only that they would be greatly reduced.

Your second point is a valid and very interesting one. IIRC one of the reasons(excuses) isp's used is that the traffic they are trying to limit is traffic that is/may be illegal. If the torrent protocol is legitimized by an large organization such as this it may help our cause. Who knows.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By Starcub on 8/29/2009 8:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There has to be an original seed for all data. In the case of normal torrents you have the problem where the original seeder may stop seeding leaving the torrent to die. In this case the mafiaa server will have to keep copies of all the digital widgets. I didnt say that the server costs would be nil, only that they would be greatly reduced.

As I see it, the primary attraction (what would differentiate your product), from a consumer pov, is the prospect of getting very high speed downloads. If you were force to maintain a mega seed server, then how would your solution be different than one in which widget makers outsourced thier hosting requirements to a third party server farm using traditional distribution methods? What would happen, if the net were non-neutral?


RE: You can take down a symbol
By tastyratz on 9/1/2009 4:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
While your idea certainly is innovative, it also has its flaws. Many people would flock with the ideas of having free credit/free downloads/etc. legally. The problem with that? Its incentive and business structure would collapse with a self sustaining infinite amount of "servers" that buy nothing. The only revenue would be people who impatiently need more content and cant wait to build credit, as well as people who are new and just starting out.
I think we would see a great number of "seedboxes" but it would die off fast and hard after the service is up after 6 months to a year. The amount of incentive for hosting they would need to provide to attract new customers would be greater than that which would sustain a profit... when the incentives go away so don't the people (Would you host it for a dollar a month credit? how about a penny? 9 thousandths of a penny?)


RE: You can take down a symbol
By log on 8/27/2009 9:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree with your point. The content industry needs to change the paradigm of its business model, same as people have changed the way they consume their produts.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By TSS on 8/26/2009 10:19:12 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think quoting Thomas Jefferson is in place here either way. I doubt, even though he was a genius, he could've comprehended we pay millions of dollars to create something that in essence, never existed in the first place.

Here's the deal: I'm sure ol' Thomas would want an businessman to get paid for his hard work according to the value of the product he made. If his product has no value afterall, why pay for it. On the other side, if the product has exceptional value (say jewelry in our western society), then the money required would skyrocket.

Now, *anything and everything digital* has no value. Because it can be perfectly replicated against no additional cost. You can argue what we humans pay for it all you want, value remains next to nothing.

So, the dilemma. Do we pay what it costs or do we pay what it's worth?

I do wish Thomas jefferson was alive so he could share his view on the matter, because i'm pretty sure none of us can.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By anindrew on 8/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: You can take down a symbol
By GaryJohnson on 8/26/2009 10:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt knowing that we pay more for the creation of ideas today than we did in his day would do anything but bolster his then opinion.

I think he saw ideas as things created naturally and not through the result of work.

We pay what it's worth when it doesn't yet exist and what it costs after it does. If someone needs or wants something that doesn't yet exist then they would still pay to have it created. But if it exists and can be shared freely then no one should have to pay for it.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By cubby1223 on 8/27/2009 12:29:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
But if it exists and can be shared freely then no one should have to pay for it.

It costs money to create things, and profit is what drives more creation.

The rest of the world works under a capitalistic economic model. It's not fair to separate out creators of digital products and say they must operate under collectivist economic model. That causes a breakdown and will result in the destruction of businesses, destruction of jobs, great reduction in new creations.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By tmouse on 8/31/2009 8:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
But this is not what we are talking about here. Movies and songs do indeed exist. Someone created the work and people were needed to work to produce it. I believe Jefferson would indeed support the copyright holders here. He certainly did not ever write that performances should be free. Now if someone wants to create movies or songs in their minds and can somehow share them they are free to do so. If you want to remember a song or movie you can; that is a pure idea. I do not believe he ever advocated that books or newspapers should only be sold at cost. He did believe that the ideas, ie: the concept of items (in the case of patents) should not be constrained to a single entity to the detriment of the people. He would also probably not condone the idea of a patent on the ideas of a historical, western or science fiction movie or book that would require anyone who would write one to have to pay to do so. He probably would have no problem with someone having the rights to a particular story though. He believed that creation of ideas and their end products should not be hindered but he also supported the concept that creators should be compensated, else that would in and of itself stifle creation.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By mars777 on 8/27/2009 1:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
Referring to free ideas was as referring to "no patents". Nothing to do with distribution of content.

Anyway Jefferson is totally screwed by our government in that regard.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By Starcub on 8/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: You can take down a symbol
By rrburton on 8/27/2009 1:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
Who are you to say that

quote:
the Simpsons Season 20, episode 17


wouldn't inspire someone towards

quote:
high ideas for the betterment of humanity


RE: You can take down a symbol
By walk2k on 8/26/2009 10:50:01 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah I'm sure TJ had teenagers stealing the latest Britanny Spears album off the internet in mind when he wrote that.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By FaaR on 8/26/2009 11:31:09 PM , Rating: 1
THAT'S not the idea that drives your average file sharer, though.

They just want shit for free, no higher moral or ethical ideas factor into it.

Although I firmly believe organizations like RIAA etc are basically the legal equivalent of a mob organization, it's completely wrong to purport the file sharing that goes on on pretty much all bittorrent (and similar) sites as some kind of freedom fight. Stop lying/deluding yourself, please.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By cubby1223 on 8/26/2009 11:57:29 PM , Rating: 3
What mininova & the pirate bay deal in is 99% pure entertainment. Spreading music, movies, tv shows, video games, porn, etc.

Sorry, to me this doesn't exactly sound like anything resembling "for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition"


RE: You can take down a symbol
By scrapsma54 on 8/27/2009 2:30:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And what is this "idea" you speak of? That people are entitled to obtain products for free if there is little risk involved? That one has been around long before mininova & the pirate bay came into existence.


Well, either way it proves someone doesn't like loosing money, but it seems like the MPAA is more concerned than the producers with sueing for more money than since they aren't the ones with the ideas.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By walk2k on 8/26/2009 7:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
But you CAN throw people in jail for violating the law.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By jonmcc33 on 8/26/2009 7:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
They can be easily replaced. Let's not forget some people still use Usenet. But it started with Napster and has just gotten worse.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By teldar on 8/26/2009 8:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
Do you mean the taking down of symbols started with napster? I would agree. If you meant file sharing started with napster, you're way off base. People have been using mIRC to share files for 20? years.


RE: You can take down a symbol
By FaaR on 8/26/2009 11:35:32 PM , Rating: 2
mIRC hasn't been around for 20 years.

IRC though... That's a different matter. (Hint: mIRC is a microsoft windows program.)

*tsk tsk* Kids today...


RE: You can take down a symbol
By anotherdude on 8/26/2009 9:25:54 PM , Rating: 5
somebody forgot rule 1 of u*en*t


RE: You can take down a symbol
By 67STANG on 8/27/2009 2:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
Demonoid, FTW.


Where's the justice
By Uncle on 8/26/2009 7:32:48 PM , Rating: 5
Its totally lopsided.Corporations can sue and drag each other through the court system for years, if they so choose. Others get knocked down by the courts in less the 6 months. Where's the justice. People need to band together monetarily and help get persons elected that promote their cause. As long as the Corporations get their people elected and control the judicial system consumers might as well throw in the towel, which is what their agenda is all about, a marketplace totally controlled by them.




RE: Where's the justice
By bug77 on 8/26/2009 7:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
I, for one, would just love to see the sales numbers after the companies have shut down every "illegal" channel of distribution.

You know, no more torrents, all securom'ed craptastic games, un-copyable abysmal movies and accordingly DRM'ed album fillers. Just a wild guess, but I'd say they'd be lucky to sell half of what they do now, once they accomplish what they have in mind.


RE: Where's the justice
By xsilver on 8/26/2009 9:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think those numbers are available too because wasnt there a time when starforce protection was used on games and no-one could crack it for a long while because it installed such an invasive rootkit on your pc? There were some major titles released with that protection too, but sales just stayed the same IIRC.

Only one to profit there was the company that made the protection.


RE: Where's the justice
By FaaR on 8/26/2009 11:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
At no point in time did starforce EVER protect a game from being uncrackable, even for a short while (and definitely not for any extended period.)

It wouldn't matter how many rootkits the game wanted to install, if you simply never installed it those rootkits would just sit there on the disc like the digital garbage they are.

Meanwhile, any cracker could read the data files on the disc unhindered, disassemble the copy protection scheme, and work around whatever measures are put in place. This on a leaked copy of the gold version sent out to disc pressing plants, possibly weeks in advance of the game's actual release date...

No, starforce and similar scumware is, and always has been a tool to prevent end-users from copying games they bought in a store, nothing else. No copy protection scheme short of digitally signed programs with keys stored hardwired into the main CPU and realtime decrypted as they run can stand up to a dedicated cracking attempt. As long as a computer can read the disc and run the code on it, crackers can break the protection.

If software makers are desperate to protect their wares they should rub each disc with steel wool before they're packaged... That way they can be sure nobody will illegaly copy them at all. ;)


RE: Where's the justice
By just4U on 8/27/2009 10:38:47 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting ...

X-Men Origins was leaked online before it had a chance to hit the movie theatres. It still managed to make it into the top 11 grossing films of the year at the world box office (It made nearly 400M)

I don't think these companies are really losing anything...


RE: Where's the justice
By xti on 8/28/2009 11:07:37 AM , Rating: 2
do you know how much insurance is on a Ferrari?!??


RE: Where's the justice
By tmouse on 8/31/2009 8:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
How do you come to that conclusion? Just because something makes X dollars (pun intended) in no way shape or form means that's all it could make if there wasn't a free source eating into its sales. Maybe it would have been the highest. While it is absurd to think EVERY illegal copy costs a sale it is equally absurd to think ANY illegal copy would never have been a sale. Do you honestly think if there were no restrictions people would pay because it's the right thing to do?


RE: Where's the justice
By ClownPuncher on 8/26/2009 7:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
The humanity


RE: Where's the justice
By walk2k on 8/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Where's the justice
By descendency on 8/26/2009 10:41:08 PM , Rating: 3
But an "Own what you pay for" candidate might be heavily popular.


RE: Where's the justice
By Jalek on 8/27/2009 2:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
You don't own anything anymore. I don't know what all the fuss is about. Land's only yours at the pleasure of the government (at their tax/lease rate), software and entertainment media's only licensed and not guaranteed to even work for you on any hardware but can't be returned if it doesn't..

I'm just not seeing the problem.


Call me crazy, but...
By Motoman on 8/26/2009 8:51:52 PM , Rating: 4
...the reason they can "filter" malware out is because you can license a virus scanner to do that for you.

No one makes a "copywrited product" scanner. And I'd wager very large amounts of money that you couldn't make such a thing that couldn't easily be bypassed - if you could get one to work at all. Not to mention, again, that no such thing even exists anyway.

Yet another message to Big Content - here's another eff you for your trouble. Everytime you pull crap like this is another reason to NOT ever buy your products again. Go the eff away already.




RE: Call me crazy, but...
By mamisano on 8/27/2009 8:40:43 AM , Rating: 2
Great comment, I was thinking the exact same thing!


How fair...
By jadeskye on 8/27/2009 2:07:23 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Despite its immediate removal of files, the court said Mininova's efforts weren't enough, and site operators should work under the assumption all commercial media available through the site are copyrighted.


Guilty until proven innocent.




Copyrighted works for Free? Heresy!
By Earthmonger on 8/27/2009 3:04:30 AM , Rating: 2
Time to sue all the major television networks for beaming copyrighted materials to anyone who wants them. Oh, and makers of VCRs, DVD players with record function, TiVo, memo recorders, cellphones with audio capture, etc. Hell, it should be illegal to own a TV or radio.

They may make a dent in piracy, eventually, but they're hurting themselves as well. The less that people even know they exist, the less potential there is to turn a profit. Both initial and collateral. Don't tell them that, though. Rather, encourage them to fight those darned pirates tooth and nail. Let them destroy themselves and their reputations.

Anyway, over the last few years I've gradually withdrawn from most of my illegal pursuits. Not all, but most. My piratical sphere encompasses mostly 70s and 80s detective movies these days, and generally only when I can't get them shipped here. I'm not exactly clean, but I still find this legal circus disgusting. Bloody skanks, the lot.




By tmouse on 8/31/2009 9:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize television and TiVo PAY for the rights to broadcast? Likewise DVD makers pay a royalty. This "free publicity" argument is just FUD. People want it because it's advertised, there is absolutely no evidence that pirating material increases sales of the items that are the most pirated. This would only happen for very small projects that do not have any advertising budget and the act of pirating usually drives them out of business since they simply cannot afford to lose any sales. I sincerely doubt 10% of people who get something for nothing voluntarily go out and pay for it, most find some excuse to justify not paying anything.


Hmmmmmmm
By dragunover on 8/26/2009 7:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting. Not like users would just reupload their copyrighted files, so why not just remove them from the site around the deadline, keep it that way for a week, and then they just continue as is?




Google it
By Zetribe on 8/27/2009 6:05:19 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps MiniNova could redirect all commercial requests to Google as per Pirategoogle.




Does anyone know..
By drewsup on 8/27/2009 8:07:50 AM , Rating: 2
Where are MiniNova's servers physically located??




Mininova next?
By PrinceGaz on 8/28/2009 7:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
Mininova next? They may have won the court case against TPB, but the last time I checked (about a minute ago), TPB website was still operating unaffected with new torrents continuing being indexed on it along with all the old ones, as if the legal action had never happened. It's not like they've had much "success" against TPB in terms of end results, so why bother starting on the smaller sites when the best known and (arguably) one of the most comprehensive BT indexes is still running as if nothing happened?

I know Mininova is one of the biggest of the other BT sites, but they're wasting their time trying to shut the likes of them down, because there are countless others already operating (probably from countries which aren't so bothered about copyright law in some cases) who will be glad for the extra traffic (and ad revenue) they receive as a result of Mininova shutting (or removing all links to copyrighted content, which will be the same as shutting as far as visitor numbers goes).

They could shut down a hundred sites like Mininova and the end result will be a hundred new sites in their place. The only people who win are the lawyers, the only people who lose are those who buy copyrighted content because more of their money ends up being spent paying lawyers. Those who want to download stuff for free will continue doing so via links from other sites, so it will do nothing to stop copyright infringement.




question
By meepstone on 8/26/2009 9:05:23 PM , Rating: 1
Does the author not proofread his own work before publishing it to the site???




i'm bored of this.
By dome1234 on 8/27/2009 6:45:46 AM , Rating: 1
This is a pointless vicious cycle that both sides share the blame.

The messy draconian drm needs to be sorted out. Politicians and money hats need to stop sleeping together.

No matter how you argue that filesharing a copy of the handycam recorded crappy transformers 2 is for the betterment of humanity, it is still not. You are still a thieving <pheeep!>.




attack the building developer
By camylarde on 8/28/09, Rating: 0
Good
By EricMartello on 8/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By exNihlio on 8/26/2009 9:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
Please elaborate on how two nearly identical torrent trackers are so widely different in your eyes. Support of such an illogical argument would be appreciated, if only for the humor.


RE: Good
By FaaR on 8/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By DarkElfa on 8/27/2009 1:22:39 AM , Rating: 1
Here's the issue I have with profits on books movies and games, its not a problem with making a profit, its a problem with them making an endless profit. Most movies make back everything they cost during they're theatrical run and if not they sure as hell do during their home video release. The same is true of music and books. These guys make ridiculous amounts of money off of these things and they never stop making money off of them. There should be a 5 year limit on the private ownership and money making opportunities of all media. That would allow costs to be recooped and profits to be made. Sure, the artists wouldn't be able to become "filthy" rich but it might just make them stop treating their funds like an endless snow day. The real issue here is greed. If my plan were put into effect I would happily give up piracy forever and support an end to illegal filesharing. Now some may ask what if the media doesn't recoop its cost or turn a profit in 5 years? Well, perhaps that would teach studios to stop churning out trite garbage in all media formats and don't tell me that people would sit around for 5 years until it was free and get it then because that would not happen. The fact is that we are all media whores and the studios know it. Hell, most of us can't even wait past opening weekend to see a film at the theater. The fact is that the largest profits a media product ever makes are in the first few months of release. As far as I can see, the only people who would be against an idea like this would be the greedy ass people who are involved in this never ending honey pot. Take Metallica for example. Lars had the gull to stand up and bitch over Napster after they already had enough money to buy their own country and yet they want more. They all always want more. They milk and they milk and they never stop milking until the cow either dries up or dies altogether. Hell, you release an awesome record and you could make enough off of touring in the first year to never have to work again. Sure, you couldn't have the golden bathtubs and private islands but I live fine on my income and while its modest, it provides my family with a stable home and nice things.

So no, I don't feel bad for the ultra rich and personally I hope piracy drives them all out of business and there isn't a damned bit of media created ever again. We managed for thousands of years without poorly thought up crap to take our focus off of whats really important, meaning real life and I hope we go back there sometime. Its hard to imagine, but people used to make music and write stories because they had an original idea and wanted to share it. Now they just find people to create unoriginal crap to confuse and deafen us in order to squeeze that last nickel out of our pockets and complete the ridiculous transfer of wealth that marches on in this world everyday.


RE: Good
By davekozy on 8/27/2009 2:10:59 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with a reasonable time limit on copyrights. Forever is too long. Patents are a good idea but they don't last indefinitely. It will let creators get their deserved royalties and maybe even spur more creativity since artists know they won't be getting royalty checks for the next fifty years for one good song.

Tax the rich into submission. Then they'll come around.


RE: Good
By deegee on 8/28/2009 1:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
Actually...

I do not agree that full copyrights should be limited to a specific short time. The owner of the IP should retain rights for the same timespan that they do now.

What should occur is that once a consumer media product (music, movie, tv show, video game, etc.) reaches a specific age from its original release date or the end of a product line, it should be free to distribute and use within specific guidelines.
Distribution must be the original product content with all copyright/trademark/etc. markings intact, unedited and unmodified, the distributing party cannot sell it for profit, etc., etc.

I have always done this with all software that my company has created and sold. After a period of about 5 years from the end of the lifespan of a product line, anyone can use and distribute it free. But I still retain all other rights. I'm not rich (I probably make less money than many of the people posting here), but I believe that companies shouldn't be greedy.


RE: Good
By tmouse on 8/31/2009 9:19:20 AM , Rating: 2
What pray tell is stopping you from "going back to a simpler time and making your own songs"? If the stuff is crap why do people want to pirate it? Do you have so little self esteem that you are reduced to copying crap? If it has NO entertainment value to you what so ever why do you want it? I hear this all the time, "all the studios make is crap" yet people buy it and others risk severe fines to take it. On one hand we have someone who is trying to sell crap for a million dollars and on the other we have someone who is risking their financial future to get a free copy of the crap, who is the bigger fool? I also do not think actors and sports personalities are worth the price they are paid but others disagree, so be it. If people really do not like the current situation they should just ignore it that sends a message, buying or taking it sends the message that the stuff has some value.


Prosecute all who facilitate piracy
By Beenthere on 8/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Prosecute all who facilitate piracy
By FaaR on 8/26/2009 11:53:32 PM , Rating: 3
That's a completely unbalanced point of view. If you want to take that stance we need to shut down every ISP on the planet immediately, including those that run the internet backbone. Way to get rid of the vermin in your home by burning down the house... *rolleyes*

Heavily fining and imprisoning people by the way is also an unworkable concept. As the laws look right now you get punished more severely for putting up a couple copyrighted files on a filesharing network than you would for raping or murdering a human being. Sense of proportions much?


RE: Prosecute all who facilitate piracy
By Beenthere on 8/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: Prosecute all who facilitate piracy
By FaaR on 8/27/2009 10:03:15 AM , Rating: 2
Problem is, society currently treats copyright lawbreakers as worse scum than ACTUAL scum; criminals who in fact cause great harm and distress in our society - something which copyright infringement does not do.

The common man (or woman, for that matter ;) just can't identify with a law that forces you to pay hundreds of thousands or more and spend years in jail for filesharing a handful of short-shelf-life pop songs recorded by some daybug artists. Not when muggers, robbers and other violent people that prey on society gets off with far less.

The copyright laws whose virtues you trumpet are disconnected from reality. They have been enacted under lobbying pressure from big business, whom want to prop up their failing business model by essentially enacting a protection racket run by society, but with profits from that racket going to themselves.

Your post does nothing to address these very valid concerns, all I see is a knee-jerk response, parroting the same propaganda one more time. Have you no ability to think and reason for yourself?


By Radnor on 8/27/2009 11:02:56 AM , Rating: 2
He cannot reply because he is an IRC Bot. He posts always the same message....

On a more intelligent note, i don't buy CDs, i don't go to the cinema. Do i torrentz all day ? Nope, i just don't pay for overpriced junk.

So for all i care, once the RIAA ends this "free-publicity" medium, they will have their downfall. Adobve and Microsoft already learned this lesson.

It is time for MAFIAA to learn theirs. Btw, i bought the last NIN album, pretty good.


By tmouse on 8/31/2009 9:05:16 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree in principle the fines are disproportionate, you are also spreading some FUD here. Please show me a link to any case where a person has been convicted and imprisoned for merely sharing a hand full of songs.


RE: Prosecute all who facilitate piracy
By xti on 8/28/2009 11:09:39 AM , Rating: 1
you will never take me alive!


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki