backtop

Internet Torrent Sites Blacklist North American Users
Tom Corelis (Blog) - September 30, 2007 4:15 PM
Print 67 comment(s) - last by gochichi.. on Oct 24 at 5:01 PM
Citing increased pressure from piracy enforcers, operators call it quits

Within the last week, two popular BitTorrent sites began blocking users located in North America: Isohunt.com’s trackers now block users in the United States; and Demonoid.com blocks users located in Canada.
 
Starting last week, Canada-based Isohunt posted a notice on its front page, stating that it has disabled access from users in the U.S. to the BitTorrent trackers at Torrentbox.com and Podtropolis.com, which are operated by Isohunt.  Isohunt elaborates, “This is due to the U.S.'s hostility towards P2P technologies, and we feel with our current lawsuit brought by the MPAA, we can no longer ensure your security and privacy in the U.S.”  Isohunt, which only indexes the torrents posted at other trackers like The Pirate Bay or TorrentBox, then asked U.S.-based users to add and use other, unrestricted trackers in its search results.
 
Shortly afterwards, Demonoid.com – also based in Canada – went offline, and many speculated that the site had either been taken down by the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), or suffered major server failures.

With rumors flying, P2P news site ZeroPaid.com received an e-mail of indeterminate source which confirmed the server troubles, and that the site was indeed undergoing a rebuild. However, because the e-mail could not be verified, and Demonoid’s operator “Deimos” never officially commented on Demonoid’s status, ZeroPaid’s e-mail was not posted until today.
 
Regardless, Demonoid’s tracker was up by September 29, 2007. The website followed, resuming operations on September 30.  Unfortunately, the return has a catch: due to interference from the CRIA, Canadian users are now blocked from Demonoid’s website and its trackers. 

Instead users are now redirected to a web page with the following message: “We received a letter from a lawyer representing the CRIA, they were threatening with legal action and we need to start blocking Canadian traffic because of this. If you reside in Canada, [this] is the reason you are being redirected to this message. Thanks for your understanding, and sorry for any inconvenience.”
 
With the rising popularity of BitTorrent, piracy enforcers are giving the protocol increasing amounts of attention. Recent e-mail and source code leaked from MediaDefender indicate that the firm seems to devote the most attention to BitTorrent, which, according to a widely-quoted 2004 study, accounts for at least a third of all internet traffic.

While sites like Demonoid and Isohunt appear to have caved in to these pressures, others choose a defiant path and turn pressure into mockery: The Pirate Bay’s legal threats page posts dozens of takedown notices and their humorous replies, and MiiVi.org advertises itself as a “tribute to the fall of MediaDefender,” hosting an open tracker sponsored in part by The Pirate Bay, Suprnova, Mininova and others.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
MPAA sucks
By JoKeRr on 9/30/2007 8:21:34 PM , Rating: 3
Nuff said.

When there's a movie worth seeing, I go to see it. If MPAA really wants to stop piracy, they should go to after the people who sell illegal DVDs.




RE: MPAA sucks
By MrPieGuy on 9/30/2007 9:26:49 PM , Rating: 4
Well that's good news. If the movie isn't worth seeing you won't mind not being able to download it, I guess.


RE: MPAA sucks
By mindless1 on 9/30/2007 10:03:49 PM , Rating: 1
You fail to see the problem. When that happens they'll just go after teenage girls and grandmothers who didn't even have a cause to realize they didn't mind not being able to download it.


RE: MPAA sucks
By omnicronx on 10/1/2007 10:42:40 AM , Rating: 2
Because your grandmother and teenage sister always sell bootleg DVD's on the side of the street! I think he is talking about those who sell the DVD's not those who buy them. When i go to China town in Toronto, the streets are littered with bootleg DVD salesman selling copies for $4-5 and thats just not right.

If you are willing to get a hardcopy copy of a movie (meaning you like it or want the movie) you should be paying for it, plain and simple. I feel no guilt downloading crappy movies that are in the theatre that i would have never gone to see (in which I usually only watch because i am bored), but if you are going to buy it, you should be buying a legal copy.


RE: MPAA sucks
By Camps on 10/2/2007 1:03:51 AM , Rating: 2
It's obvious that the market is trying to dictate the cost of music and movies but with the amount of money and lobbyist the RIAA thugs can throw around they are forcing their own pricing. The greedy men with beady eyes will get their due.

People who torrent most of these items have a very low chance of even buying the material in the first place. 20 dollars for a dvd and 60 for a video game is robbery so people vote with their wallet.


RE: MPAA sucks
By othercents on 10/3/2007 1:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is obvious to some that if given the choice to pay to watch a movie in the theater or download it for free, most people would rather download it. Now if you were only given the choice of watching the movie in a theater or not watching in at all, then there is a good percentage that would have downloaded for free would now watch it in the theater. There are many people who just download the movie and either store it on their hard drive or burn it to DVD never intending on buying a copy.

Overall theater pricing has gotten ridiculous especially if it is a family of four. If it is going to be a great movie then just buy it on DVD that way the whole family can watch it over and over again for free. Now the catch comes when little Johnny isn't as nice to the DVD or equipment and it gets all scratched up and unreadable. This is where being able to make copies for personal use works out well.

I definitely can't agree with anyone that would download a movie with the intention of keeping it in their library to watch over and over again. You should buy the DVD.

Other


RE: MPAA sucks
By Phynaz on 10/1/2007 9:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry about that, I went to mod you up, hit the wrong link.


RE: MPAA sucks
By MatthewAC on 9/30/2007 9:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
Lazy ass pirater, if you think a movie isn't worth seeing then don't watch the damn thing, 'nuff said.


RE: MPAA sucks
By mindless1 on 9/30/2007 10:07:36 PM , Rating: 3
COngratulations, you just insulted one of their PAYING customers. Jokerr didn't claim it's an excuse to pirate, rather a comment about where the money is going. A lot of people with the funds to buy this content aren't sitting around using P2P all day, they're at work earning that money and will buy their bootleg DVD off a street corner at a fraction of the price.


RE: MPAA sucks
By MatthewAC on 9/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: MPAA sucks
By mindless1 on 10/1/2007 1:25:28 AM , Rating: 1
No, it's copyright infringement. Is it illegal? yes. Does that make it the same crime as some OTHER offense? No.

I have to wonder why you are so quick to make these sweeping conclusions. Actually I think you have an affiliation, these new articles on major internet 'sites drive the termites out of the woodwork.


RE: MPAA sucks
By Misty Dingos on 10/1/2007 8:32:34 AM , Rating: 4
The possible penalty for copyright infringement from the Feds.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/...
Copy more than ten albums in a six month period and you can find yourself looking at 5 years in prison and be fined $250,000. Or conversely you can infringe on the a single work worth more than $2500 and Get the same penalty.

The possible penalty from simple theft from the Feds.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/...
If you steal over $60,000 worth of property you are likely to get the interest of the Feds, if they have some jurisdiction. Less than that and they are not even likely to notice.

Is it just me or do the Feds take copyright infringement more seriously than theft?

Not a sweeping conclusion here just a simple fact. Feds don't want copyright infringement to get stupidly out of hand. Oh wait it already is. Because people think that downloading an album or movie isn't stealing.

You know when people justify downloading music they always claim that the RIAA is just trying to strangle the musician for a few more cents. They are just screwing us for a buck more at the store for the CD. Well let's put this in terms we can all deal with. CD sales are what 20% down? Well that means that one in five of the people that run the CD printing stations are now looking for a job. That is the cost of large scale uncontrolled internet based music piracy. Some poor shlub that is just trying to make enough to make a car payment or rent this month is looking for a job.

Before you all jump on me like I am the press guy for the RIAA, let me say that nobody is clean here. The RIAA and their friends have made so many blunders in this that it is hard to justify their existence. But the guys that know they are profiting from piracy are not doing anyone any good either.

Stealing someone’s work is still stealing. Whether it is your neighbors weed eater or a downloading a copy of Britney Spears latest crap fest they call an album.


RE: MPAA sucks
By Targon on 10/1/2007 9:05:36 AM , Rating: 4
Without knowing the inner workings of the FBI, it seems that the FBI shouldn't be overly worried about the really small crimes going on out there. This is why(from previous posts) they won't go after people who are downloading less than $60,000 worth of material.

On the flip side, distribution that crosses state lines(Internet) WOULD be a crime the FBI would get involved with. Most local crimes that do not cross state lines should stay within the confines of local and state police. Crimes that cross the country and are larger scale operations are where the FBI could/should get involved.

Then, you have common sense when it comes to the MPAA and RIAA. In the case of the MPAA, a movie costs what, between $10 and $25 in most cases. Considering seeing a movie in the theater costs $10 per person, buying a movie on DVD really doesn't seem to be that expensive, and since the quality of the DVD is higher than most versions available for download, it really doesn't make much sense to download for MOST people.

The RIAA on the other hand has less of a case in the court of public opinion. A CD doesn't provide quality or material that is higher quality than the highest quality downloaded music. In addition to this, since you can download music at under $1 per track, most CDs sold should be marked down to at least match the price of $1 per track to make the purchase of the CD worth the price. This is the key to why there are so many issues, and why people download music, both legally and illegally. Costs to buy a CD really are much too high for what you get in most cases.

If the RIAA really wanted to stop people from doing illegal downloads, they would focus on a way to improve the quality of CDs where it is WORTH it to buy rather than download. That's the key, where is the increased quality of a legally purchased product that would make it worth the purchase price?

Then, you also need to look at what the MPAA and RIAA are really there for. The MPAA is there to protect the movie studios, and the RIAA is there to protect the music recording/distribution companies. Since just about every movie that people want to buy/download are made by the studios that are represented by the MPAA, the MPAA really does represent the people who are making the movies we want to watch.

The RIAA on the other hand does NOT represent the artists who make the music we want to listen to. This is a big difference, and is the reason why the RIAA is desperate enough to sue everyone they possibly can. The RIAA is obsolete when the artists have the ability to get paid directly by those distributing on-line. Why go to the big names in the recording industry to make and distribute CDs when any advertising firm can be used to get the word out about new music groups and artists? The execs at the big music publishers don't really DO anything for those making the music at this point, it is the other people who handle the recording studios who do the real work for the artists.


RE: MPAA sucks
By Misty Dingos on 10/1/2007 10:36:34 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you that much of the recording industry is antiquated and in desperate need of renovation or replacement. And that this would do much to remedy some of the piracy.

But I am not sure that a major movie studio could not argue that the cost to them for a pirated film before it is released to secondary sales is much greater than $60,000. If someone had the opportunity to sell or distribute a pirated copy of the movie 300 before it released on DVD or other format then the cost to the studio is the lack of real revenue from ticket sales in theaters. The top grossing film this week was making an average of $8500 a theater and grossed over $20 million. One half of one percent of that take was $100,000. It would not take a Boston Legal lawyer to make the case that a pirated film released when it is hot in theaters could meet the $60 K benchmark.


RE: MPAA sucks
By Phynaz on 10/1/2007 9:09:50 AM , Rating: 3
Another "it's not not stealing" post.

Yes, it is. Quit trying to justify your illegal actions.


RE: MPAA sucks
By omnicronx on 10/1/2007 11:02:11 AM , Rating: 2
Another yes it is stealing post.. great!
I do not endorse copyright infringement, but movie/recording industries are doing nothing to fix it. Charging people for downloading a few albums will not fix anything, lowering grossly overpriced products will. Until these industries realize consumers are no longer going to take their corporate bullshit, people are going to continue to pirate.

Compared to most other industries, (especially any mainstream industry) the margins for CD and Movie sales are far greater than the norm. People are not stupid and do not like being ripped off. With the progression of the internet and the ability to have your voice heard, people are no longer laying down. I still to this day do not understand why we pay at least $20 for a new movie and 10-15 for a new CD, its just wrong.

Illegal actions maybe, but i do not feel one bit of remorse for the immoral actions of the movie/recording industry.
And you ranting on about 'still being illegal' doesn't help anything either, you are merely justifying what these industries are doing as 'right'.


RE: MPAA sucks
By omnicronx on 10/1/2007 12:00:33 PM , Rating: 3
I love the rate-down. Stealing a loaf of $2 bread is illegal too, but if it cost me $20 for that loaf I would not feel sorry for the stores i which they were stolen from. I hope you feel happy being a zealot, the RIAA and Movie industry loves you for it.


RE: MPAA sucks
By cgrecu77 on 10/1/2007 1:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
or paying him for it ... :)


RE: MPAA sucks
By The0ne on 10/1/2007 3:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
You assumed the store might be trying to make a huge profit. And you bash others for assuming more plausible actions on piracy? Theft is theft, but when a company makes a minor profit it's not. Get it straight.

Who's to say that the store carried $20 breads and they might be paying $19 for it. Thus making only $1 in profit to cover their cost. It might be, afterall, that the owner understand what's going on and want to help as much as possible. But then you get it already don't you? Everyone is bad so screw them and steal what you can before another person does...lmao.


RE: MPAA sucks
By rcc on 10/1/2007 7:02:48 PM , Rating: 3
If the price is too high, don't buy. But don't steal/infringe. From their perspective, pirating is demand. So all they need to do is prevent the piracy and they get sales.

OTOH, if our piratical crew doesn't buy, doesn't listen, doesn't copy, etc. Eventually the record companies will change. Economics wins again.


RE: MPAA sucks
By The0ne on 10/1/2007 3:17:50 PM , Rating: 3
Yep, not matter how you look at it I totally agree. But that what people do, find ways to justify their "illegal" actions so they can sleep better :) This, of course, applies to other actions as well :P


RE: MPAA sucks
By mindless1 on 10/1/2007 9:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, another it's not stealing post. Primative man had only a few words but today there exist quite a few to distinguish different acts. Many different illegal acts as well. Copyright infringement isn't stealing, nor it is murder, an (automobile) moving violation, defacement, or any number of other different terms.

SOmeone who corrects an ignorant post about it not being stealing is not more prone to murder, moving violations or defacement. Claiming that someone is trying to justify illegal actions by correcting ignorant posts is unfounded.


RE: MPAA sucks
By Phynaz on 10/3/2007 11:46:29 AM , Rating: 4
What ignorant is stupid people who don't know that copyright infringement is itellectual property theft.


RE: MPAA sucks
By mindless1 on 10/6/2007 9:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
While I know what you meant to say, I'm not goign to write enough to educate you after only enough effort to write one sentence.


RE: MPAA sucks
By GaryJohnson on 10/1/2007 2:11:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jokerr didn't claim it's an excuse to pirate.


I think he implied that if a movie isn't worth watching it's ok to obtain it by torrent.


RE: MPAA sucks
By JackBurton on 9/30/2007 10:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
ThePirateBay is funny. :)


RE: MPAA sucks
By Axbattler on 10/1/2007 12:50:14 AM , Rating: 2
But why should they limit themselves to illegal DVDs dealers?

I can understand to some extent why drug dealers get the harshest penalties. They are making money by supplying illegal substances that has all sorts of negative effect on society. Yet I am pretty sure that you can't even light up a joint in front of a law officer without getting into some kind of trouble (simply for possession).

Now there is a big difference between illegal DVDs and drugs, but if you are going to go after illegal DVD dealers, then shouldn't you also give a slap on the wrist (i.e. fine) people who own those products? It is more productive to go after the dealers but I do not see much logic as to why 'end users' should be exempted in this case.

And what makes illegal DVD dealers 'worse' than P2P distribution of movies? Is it because those who distribute do not make any money from it? I do not see the relevance. Come to think of it, last time I went to China, I saw quite a lot of people selling pirated DVDs out in the street. I doubt they are making much out of their 'business', and quite honestly, I wonder how they get by. Doesn't change the fact that they are 'dealers', and ideally, they would be doing something better and legal. But I suppose that I'd rather see people deal illegal DVDs than mug tourists.

What I am getting at is, if you will fight piracy at all, then it does make sense to do it from every angle. I am not impressed when they get it wrong and end up taking a grandma who never touched a PC before in court, but I do not see how one could defend a college student who probably knows exactly what s/he is doing. No they do not deserve to be sued for every penny and robbed of a chance for a future for that, but they are not exactly innocent.

What I wonder is, how successful would a tracker that only has legal material (open source applications, free music from independent artists, YouTube-like videos, trailers, sharewares, demos etc.) compared to those that tracks everything legal and illegal.


RE: MPAA sucks
By mindless1 on 10/1/2007 1:35:45 AM , Rating: 2
You wrote "if you will fight piracy at all, then it does make sense to do it from every angle. I am not impressed when they get it wrong and end up taking a grandma who never touched a PC before in court, but I do not see how one could defend a college student who probably knows exactly what s/he is doing. No they do not deserve to be sued for every penny and robbed of a chance for a future for that, but they are not exactly innocent."

1) What makes you think we are compelled to fight piracy at all, it is a rather trivial problem in the greater scheme of things.

2) Trying to minimize their blunders by mentioning mistakes like persecuting a grandmother, does not make the overall policy used, any more palatable. You wrote college student, are they made of money or quite the opposite, financially constrained due to learning skills to benefit society?

3) No they are not "innocent". Now show me one truely innocent soul in an absolute sense. Yes under our current legal system it is an offense. So is speeding while driving, while potentially risks lives yet carries a penalty under $100. RIAA/MPAA et al have not ever demonstrated real loss, it is an impossible fiction to claim the losses they do. Cases should be thrown out based on this deliberate deceipt alone the very first time, then some very large fines imposted when they demonstrate they didn't learn their lesson on the VERY FIRST CASE EVER.

4) If one can't obey the laws of the land, they can asssume penalty for this, but right now penalty <> crime, we have a large monopolistic mob stuffing money into legislators' pockets to effect an outcome which opposes fair use, opposed an open market, and pits the consumer against special interest groups.

Fix the problem before complaining about the result.


RE: MPAA sucks
By wordsworm on 10/1/07, Rating: -1
RE: MPAA sucks
By kyp275 on 10/1/2007 8:09:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Society should emancipate drugs


and I suppose you're going to pay for all the increased cost and burden that'll be placed on our already crappy health-care system that'll result from an even more widespread use of drugs right?

or are you going to say that drugs are actually harmless, people don't get addicted, OD is just a myth, and that using drugs actually increases work productivity? :rolleyes:


RE: MPAA sucks
By AlvinCool on 10/1/2007 9:29:36 AM , Rating: 3
and I suppose you're going to pay for all the increased cost and burden that'll be placed on our already crappy health-care system that'll result from an even more widespread use of drugs right?

I know this is a technical forum and the actual topic is DVD/MUSIC copywright infringment, but since this was allowed as a post I wish to answer it. For years I've heard this debate without an answer because we always look at the US for the model. I recently went to Mexico and got a completely different prespective. There you can walk into any pharmacy and buy anything, and I mean anything, without a doctors prescription. I could have, had I wished, bought a handful of oxycotin. Viagra is sold at the airport pharmacy. Marijuana is as good as legal. But what you don't see is rampant drug use. The workers in the plant I visited are really hard working and they work "smart". The food served in the local resturants is much better than we have here. Just an observation from visiting a country that has legal drugs available everywhere.


RE: MPAA sucks
By flutedude2005 on 10/1/2007 5:23:53 AM , Rating: 2
doesn't the entertainment industry lose nearly billions due to piracy? that sounds like a big issue to me...


RE: MPAA sucks
By PlasmaBomb on 10/1/2007 5:44:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
For months, Canadian coppers have been claiming that software piracy costs the country $30 billion


The RCMP did not conduct any independent research on the scope or impact of counterfeiting in Canada, but rather merely searched a couple news stories.

quote:
$30 billion figure simply plucked from bottom
as The Inquirer puts it...

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/0...


RE: MPAA sucks
By theapparition on 10/1/2007 8:20:07 AM , Rating: 2
I have absolutely no figures to back up my claims, but I'd guarantee that if all piracy were to magically stop tommorow, they wouldn't be recording those billiions on thier books.
Just because someone picks up a file for "free" doesn't equate to the fact that they would have purchased it if the "free" option wasn't available. That's what the MPAA basis it's estimates on, and it's wrong. People shouldn't pirate the files, but the industry is not really losing that much.

(Disclaimer - I own over 1000 legally purchased DVD's/HD-DVD's/BR disks and have pirated none)


RE: MPAA sucks
By mindless1 on 10/1/2007 9:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
NO, we'd have to assume they don't lose billions since there has never been any proof of it, only the contrary that potential customers are turned off by crap content, excessive prices, and their fictional claims of loss as a persecution tool.

The big issue is they choose not to adapt to a changing market and instead, make up lofty figures about what they lose by not changing.


Proxy anyone?
By HrilL on 10/1/2007 12:07:26 AM , Rating: 3
All I got to say is this does pretty much nothing. Any avid user knows how to use a proxy and there are 1000s of free ones to use all over the world. Might cut back on the bone heads but it really doesn't do much. It also causes people to go underground.




RE: Proxy anyone?
By neezee on 10/1/2007 12:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
thats what im doing, hopefully the trackers work?


RE: Proxy anyone?
By TomCorelis on 10/1/2007 4:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention, both Tor and I2P may give you the option of getting around any kind of geographic site blocks...


RE: Proxy anyone?
By P4blo on 10/1/2007 5:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
From what I've read I dont think these proxies could cope with potentially 1/3 of all the worlds internet traffic landing on them. A few people might get away with it.

Wiki quote:

"Bandwidth hogging
It is considered impolite to transfer massive amounts of data across the Tor network – the onion routers are run by volunteers using their own bandwidth at their own cost"

BitTorrent would surely create enormous amounts of bandwidth usage. IRC and web browsing is a different story... Are there any proxies which regard themselves Torrent friendly?


RE: Proxy anyone?
By glomag on 10/1/2007 10:27:41 AM , Rating: 2
You don't have to proxy all of the data you are transferring (the 1/3 of internet trafic) you only have to proxy your tracker communications. These only require a few kb/s up and down so they can easily be sent through TOR or the countless other web proxies.


RE: Proxy anyone?
By euclidean on 10/1/2007 10:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
Or just stick with the better, private torrent sites that don't block based on geographic regions...


RE: Proxy anyone?
By InsaneGain on 10/1/2007 1:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
Demonoid is a members site and it uses some kind of IP verification. If I log onto Demonoid and download a torrent file and e-mail that torrent file to someone else who is not a member, I don't think that person can use that torrent file to connect to the tracker. So I am wondering if a proxy service like Tor could get around the Canada ban.


RE: Proxy anyone?
By HrilL on 10/1/2007 8:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
Demonoid's torrents are found on many sites that just use the tracker. Like mininova.org So I believe you can email them. Demonoid doesn't seem to use passkeys like most other private trackers do.


RIAA and the likes vs. Radiohead
By thegrimace on 10/1/2007 12:28:27 AM , Rating: 3
Just wanted all of you who actually think about how "the system" could be fixed, Radiohead is releasing an album in 10 days for "free" digital download. The only reason I put free in italics is because you simply pay what you want. Of course such a strategy would never work with lesser known bands, but it can with Radiohead. With how much of your money typically goes to the industry we all hate, $5 would easily make Radiohead more money than before. And of course you can order a hard copy for the some-what ludicrous price of roughly $81 US, this gives you the vinyl, CD, and eCD. It makes me wonder if they are pricing it so high so that chain stores will not bother buying it and trying to sell it at a markup.




RE: RIAA and the likes vs. Radiohead
By xsilver on 10/1/2007 1:04:11 AM , Rating: 2
This is brilliant!
I've been seeing more and more bands trying to take control of their record contracts and some forgoing their contracts altogether to try something exciting.

Rabid fans will be able to put $100 if they want and casual listeners might only put $5
Hopefully it balances out in the end. Plus for people that put $5 and are pleasantly surprised by the album can always buy/donate some more for another "copy"

What remains to be seen is if they are going to try make instore sales available or stick to mail order only.


RE: RIAA and the likes vs. Radiohead
By TomCorelis on 10/1/2007 4:27:36 AM , Rating: 2
But if a band takes control of its record contracts... then it has to hire its own mastering engineer, handle its own duplication (which may not be necessary now), and run or rent its own studio... none of which is cheap. A big reason why the big labels work is because they provide facilities for the band to apply polish in return for a sizable cut of the revenues. Of course, there's more to that... but in my reading, I've found it costs $5-$10k to release a single--including mixing, mastering, duplication, and distribution. And what if the song doesnt catch? Very few bands can afford the risk.


By xsilver on 10/1/2007 11:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
For a band that relies heavily on expensive studio equipment and whatnot, yes I agree that costs can be too much for a small band to bear. For a more acoustic sound or a record like thom yorke's "eraser" (recorded primarily on laptop) It is entirely possible and already happening.

If you really wanted, you could record in your mum's basement doesnt make a difference unless you make it an excuse that your music is not good enough. Major bands already do records not in large studios but in their own houses or other celebrity houses.

Whats crippling is that for a new band to sign a record deal, have a hit single, expect to get paid only to find out that their share of the profits could have been had working night shift at burger king.
The sad thing is then for a niave public member to say OMG, xxx you're my hero cause u so rich! lol.

Oh and duplication and distribution are being cut out of this new buisness model, thats the whole point.


Piracy...
By daftrok on 9/30/2007 9:36:42 PM , Rating: 3
The bad thing about piracy is that there will always be piracy. The good thing about piracy is that there will always be piracy. They can blacklist all they want, they will never get rid of it.




RE: Piracy...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/1/2007 8:16:31 AM , Rating: 3
Well, to be perfectly honest it just makes the situation worse. The RIAA patted themselves on the back when Napster was shut down years ago.... Look what happened. Now their targets simply multiply like rabbits. If anything, by shutting down Napster, launching the huge number of lawsuits and making it a front page issue they have make the situation far worse than when it was just the techie elite doing it... Now everyone and their uncle knows about it (Thanks to the RIAA giving it huge press) and can use it.


RE: Piracy...
By herrdoktor330 on 10/2/2007 11:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I advocate getting PC user groups together, throw LAN parties on closed networks (ie a DHCP server and some switches), and transfer anything you shouldn't over sneaker-net or at the party. The only thing that will stop that is an all-pervasive DRM. But we, as users, already have lossless rippers, the hardware, and the "know how" to keep that from being an issue.

Granted, this isn't the fastest way to share. But it's by far the safest... unless your friends work for the RIAA groups.


WTF CRIA
By NagoyaX on 10/1/2007 12:14:40 AM , Rating: 5
Ok, so let me get this stright. In Canada we have to pay something called the audio levy. That means for every CD we buy we pay 21 cents. Every tape and MD is 24 cents. Now they want to put an audio levy on MP3 players (like the Ipod) which can run up to 75 Dollars (CDN).

So they are gonna charge us this levy which assumes that people download music instead of paying for it on iTunes and other programs like that, and give us a hard time out downloading music from B/T??

Make up your mind CRIA. Either charge us the audio levy or make it so we cant download. You can not have it both ways. I do not want to pay for my music twice to you. If you do not want people d/ling music stop the levy which we have been paying for years now.




RE: WTF CRIA
By alifbaa on 10/1/2007 6:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the only thing the levy accomplishes is to encourage people to D/L and discourage those who don't download from buying. For those who live on the border with the US, it encourages them to buy music whenever they are in the US, thus spending money outside the Canadian economy.

If you want to see this problem get bad, wait until they add $75 onto MP3 players and everyone starts buying them from foreign sources over the internet. It will be even worse if the $Cdn continues to strengthen against the $US, making that fixed $75cdn tax even more expensive.

Worst of all, the audio levy erodes the notion of a free and open economy by unnecessarily and arbitrarily involving the government in the pricing system -- something that discourages investment in every business throughout the entire Canadian economy while increasing the tax burden on all citizens.

Other than that, it works perfectly and is a monument to what is possible when centralized economics theory is put into practice. Way to go Canada!


Legal users again get screwed.....
By CyborgTMT on 10/1/2007 4:54:08 AM , Rating: 1
The thing that pisses me off the most about going after the P2P sites is that it effects my fully legal use of them. I often download 'backup' copies of CDs or DVDs that I own since it's usually faster than ripping it to my media center pc. I also work a lot of nights so if I happen to forget to set my PC to record a show that's on while at work, I'll download it when I get home. Again, it's legal since I've already paid for the programing. I mostly use private trackers, but for some harder to find stuff Isohunt came in handy.

I'm also waiting on someone to sue because they used a tracker for legitimate business and it got shut down or blocked. There are a lot of independent artists, writers, and developers that use P2P to distribute samples of their work.




RE: Legal users again get screwed.....
By alifbaa on 10/1/2007 6:21:03 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the use you're describing is illegal. The DMCA prohibits you from ripping your CD's to anything other than a CD-R. Note, that is a -R, not a +R, and certainly not an RW. You can also forget about ripping multiple CD's to a single DVD, or changing the file format to an MP3. Apparently, in the eyes of our illustrious political leaders, it is important enough to specify.

As for anything with video, you can record directly from your received broadcast, but cannot share it or receive it from any other source. You are breaking the law by downloading that Simpson's episode you missed and could have gotten for free OTA. It doesn't matter if you were to even download a copy with your local station's ads still in it.

Doesn't that make sense? Don't you feel served by your government right now? Don't you feel like your interests were taken to heart when they wrote the DMCA? I know laws like this make me proud to be an American.


By TomCorelis on 10/1/2007 11:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure the DMCA gives pretty broad permission to make and possess backup copies of things you legitimately own. What you *can't* do is break DRM or encryption to do so, unless its for a very specific purpose...


demonoid in Canada
By JoKeRr on 9/30/2007 8:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
Btw, I'm from Canada, and so far there's nothing wrong with my demonoid tracker.




Phew
By mikeyD95125 on 9/30/2007 8:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
I thought demonoid shut down on me. Thats a relief, to bad for the Canadians though.

I hope this isn't a precindent for future appeasement of the music/movie industries. Torrent sites should agree to draw the line somewhere and not back down. Though that a difficult thing to do I know :(




Demonoid from California
By skyyspam on 9/30/2007 10:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
For two days in a row, I could not connect to Demonoid. Now, after reading DT, I get this:

"The latest changes to the site are giving us some problems - We'll be back soon"

Oh well, it's an improvement from yesterday.

Still--I thought Demonoid's registration policy would prevent any kind of legal woes. Why are all of the free-to-use tracker sites unaffected?




Who needs torrents?
By headbox on 10/1/2007 1:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
It's easier, faster, and more reliable to use google and have a rapidshare.com account. I hate waiting for torrents when it takes days to get a large file, or watch it freeze at 99%. With rapidshare all I need to do is google it and download it at the limits of my ISP.




By someguy123 on 10/1/2007 3:53:59 AM , Rating: 2
This is not to condone piracy, but if these sites could afford to go to court they would win every case as long as they aren't literally hosting pirated material off their sites (torrent files are not the actual files themselves).

another situation throwing money at something can help break the law.




I Must Be Lucky
By Quiescent on 10/1/2007 7:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
I don't really download anything else but videos from the site. I had contemplated downloading games to try them out, but many people run across games on isohunt to be infected. I am not so proud of their system.




Private Tracker
By kiwik on 10/1/2007 12:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
Why not make the tracker available only to those who have an account. I'm not sure on this but aren't private trackers free from the RIAA and it's friends?




MiiVii.org
By bpurkapi on 10/1/2007 2:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
This is media defender's site and is a front to trick people into seeding bad torrents. Avoid miivii.org or .com!




RE: MiiVii.org
By tastyratz on 10/5/07, Rating: 0
!
By gochichi on 10/24/2007 5:01:47 PM , Rating: 1
Piracy is the highest form of flattery.

My message to other countries: Stop stealing our junk, and make your own junk!

It peeves me how piracy is rampant in other countries but they still have the audacity to form lawsuits about things they don't even abide by.

Truly, the anti-American thing is going to bring down capitalism. Trust me, when these bastards finish leeching it all there will be nothing left to leech... and that won't be good.

What people don't understand is that piracy hurts the big dogs but it eliminates the little dogs. Microsoft wouldn't have a functional monopoly without piracy. What happens when you can't afford the best? You look for a cheaper alternative.

When Photoshop is $900.00 you might take a second look at Photoshop LS for $99. But when Photoshop can be had for free, it makes no sense to consider anything else.

All of this to say that free software is being held back by piracy. If the "best" doesn't want you, maybe you shouldn't want the "best".

In any case, it's a sad world where American companies think it's alright for American customers to pay for the goods while the rest of the world gets it for free. It's backward.




WTF?
By realist on 9/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: WTF?
By Gul Westfale on 9/30/2007 11:59:43 PM , Rating: 5
hmm... you might wanna rephrase some of that once you've sobered up.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles










botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki