Comments on: MPAA targets core BitTorrent, eDonkey users

Civil, criminal suits are filed against key file-swappers in the United States and Europe.

[Konrad]

Partial Files and Your Privacy

The very strengths of a successful peer to peer network of BitTorrent and eDonkey are its weakness.

Unlike FastTrack (e.g. Kazaa) or Gnutella, both BitTorrent and eDonkey force you to share partial files. Shards or fragments of a file are already available for download to other users regardless whether that file has been completely downloaded or not. Sharing these scattered fragments uses less resources than the whole, and people are more likely to find the file by piecing fragments together which would otherwise be more difficult to find on leech tolerant networks (e.g. FastTrack and Gnutella). Also, BitTorrent and eDonkey files use hashes (e.g. fingerprint), which make it nearly impossible to spoof.

BitTorrent and eDonkey force you to share partial files that presumably have a unique fingerprint. The RIAA and MPAA are using finger print identification programs and can spot potential violators without having to download the entire file! Your partial files are in effect being served to the rest of the community, and you can become ensared in the dragnet.

Piracy is a real problem whether it is music, movies or software. Intellectual property holders have a right to protect their interests.

The other practical implications are this fingerprint technology could be used to: (1) identify and track distribution of dissident material; (2) identify downloading habits of groups or individuals. Privacy is sacrificed.

I believe the purpose of most P2P networks is not to evade detection or enable clandestine activities, but offer another medium to share files which might not otherwise be available.

The next step in P2P evolution will probably be security and encryption controls that will make the experience more anonymous. Anonymity coupled with forced sharing of bandwidth will foster more participation than merely forced sharing of specific partial uploads.

[Fray9]

But

But if your only facilitating the transfer of pieces of files with no way of knowing what that piece is part of, your more or less acting as an ISP. You not only cant prevent people from using your service for illegal traffic, but you have no way of knowing if the material is illegal.

Not to mention the fact that since when is a fragmented segment of inoperable and unidentifyable compiled code covered under the copyright of the original work? Wouldnt it be fair use?

If I wrote down on a piece of paper 3 random words from "Romeo and Juliet" not knowing the source could I be sued? More to the point.. should it be legal to sue me?

[Konrad]

Partial Files and Your Privacy

The very strengths of a successful peer to peer network of BitTorrent and eDonkey are its weakness.

Unlike FastTrack (e.g. Kazaa) or Gnutella, both BitTorrent and eDonkey force you to share partial files. Shards or fragments of a file are already available for download to other users regardless whether that file has been completely downloaded or not. Sharing these scattered fragments uses less resources than the whole, and people are more likely to find the file by piecing fragments together which would otherwise be more difficult to find on leech tolerant networks (e.g. FastTrack and Gnutella). Also, BitTorrent and eDonkey files use hashes (e.g. fingerprint), which make it nearly impossible to spoof.

BitTorrent and eDonkey force you to share partial files that presumably have a unique fingerprint. The RIAA and MPAA are using finger print identification programs and can spot potential violators without having to download the entire file! Your partial files are in effect being served to the rest of the community, and you can become ensared in the dragnet.

Piracy is a real problem whether it is music, movies or software. Intellectual property holders have a right to protect their interests.

The other practical implications are this fingerprint technology could be used to: (1) identify and track distribution of dissident material; (2) identify downloading habits of groups or individuals. Privacy is sacrificed.

I believe the purpose of most P2P networks is not to evade detection or enable clandestine activities, but offer another medium to share files which might not otherwise be available.

The next step in P2P evolution will probably be security and encryption controls that will make the experience more anonymous. Anonymity coupled with forced sharing of bandwidth will foster more participation than merely forced sharing of specific partial uploads.

[Fray9]

But

But if your only facilitating the transfer of pieces of files with no way of knowing what that piece is part of, your more or less acting as an ISP. You not only cant prevent people from using your service for illegal traffic, but you have no way of knowing if the material is illegal.

Not to mention the fact that since when is a fragmented segment of inoperable and unidentifyable compiled code covered under the copyright of the original work? Wouldnt it be fair use?

If I wrote down on a piece of paper 3 random words from "Romeo and Juliet" not knowing the source could I be sued? More to the point.. should it be legal to sue me?

[Jonathan]

I actually hope they come after me.

The only "stuff" I download are movies I already own. I'd love to hear the ***holes from the MPAA's rational for coming after a person who already owns a copy. Not only a copy but my DVD collection is 400 disks and growing. I'll fight this with every penny I have. Screw the MPAA.

[Jonathan]

I actually hope they come after me.

The only "stuff" I download are movies I already own. I'd love to hear the ***holes from the MPAA's rational for coming after a person who already owns a copy. Not only a copy but my DVD collection is 400 disks and growing. I'll fight this with every penny I have. Screw the MPAA.

[Burnsie001]

Pot calling kettles black.

Where they get the nerve to call other people parasites is beyond me. They have been leeching off artists since the recording industry started.

Copyright, is only relevant with commercial production techniques. Sure there needs to be rules to protect businesses investment in media production hardware, but to claim the needs more protection when media production is cost effective for the individual is farcical. The entertainment industry no longer requires the massive investment in physical media, that needs the sort of protection that copyright was created for.

[Burnsie001]

Pot calling kettles black.

Where they get the nerve to call other people parasites is beyond me. They have been leeching off artists since the recording industry started.

Copyright, is only relevant with commercial production techniques. Sure there needs to be rules to protect businesses investment in media production hardware, but to claim the needs more protection when media production is cost effective for the individual is farcical. The entertainment industry no longer requires the massive investment in physical media, that needs the sort of protection that copyright was created for.

[lwvirden]

Destroying technology because of abuse

Hollywood may find they have killed their own industry in this mad pursuit to try to control something that cannot be controlled. As fast as they shut down one technology, another will spring up.

However, in the case of BitTorrent, they have a serious problem - BitTorrent is used for the distribution of any kind of computer files - and the courts can be shown that it is being used for distribution of things like the latest Mozilla or Firefox distributions, as well as many other software distributions - particularly large or very popular ones.

It seems unlikely to me that lawyers will want to try to set a precedence of 'well, if this can be used for illegal purposes, it must not be permitted at all', since of course, one could say the same thing about music and video - since they can be used for illegal purposes, perhaps the courts should just rule that movie and music of any sort should be illegal.

[lwvirden]

Destroying technology because of abuse

Hollywood may find they have killed their own industry in this mad pursuit to try to control something that cannot be controlled. As fast as they shut down one technology, another will spring up.

However, in the case of BitTorrent, they have a serious problem - BitTorrent is used for the distribution of any kind of computer files - and the courts can be shown that it is being used for distribution of things like the latest Mozilla or Firefox distributions, as well as many other software distributions - particularly large or very popular ones.

It seems unlikely to me that lawyers will want to try to set a precedence of 'well, if this can be used for illegal purposes, it must not be permitted at all', since of course, one could say the same thing about music and video - since they can be used for illegal purposes, perhaps the courts should just rule that movie and music of any sort should be illegal.

[atariboy]

Beyond U.S. law

Many popular torrent trackers may be in countries that are not under U.S. law. I have a hard time seeing how such trackers can be pressured to shut down by groups like the MPAA. Keep in mind, however that torrent clients are well identified by IP address, so I would look towards participation in trusted groups using encryption for safer data sharing.

[atariboy]

Beyond U.S. law

Many popular torrent trackers may be in countries that are not under U.S. law. I have a hard time seeing how such trackers can be pressured to shut down by groups like the MPAA. Keep in mind, however that torrent clients are well identified by IP address, so I would look towards participation in trusted groups using encryption for safer data sharing.

Here's an idea...

Why don't the respective industries look at stoping piracy a different way? By this I mean make their products more affordable to the general public. Nobody wants to spend 50-90 dollars on a video game that they'll play to it's end only once. Let's face it most of the games that come out today are limited in replayability. As for the movie industry, they could also afford to reduce their profits and by the same token cut their losses if going to the movies or renting a movie would cost less. In my area, catching a movie in the theater with my wife will cost me somewhere around 30 dollars and that includes 2 sodas and some popcorn. Now by my standards that's a lot of money to see a movie that's probably been over-hyped anyway. Sure we see the trailers on tv and stuff, but let's face it the trailers are showing us the best parts of the movie...the rest is usually crap. I grow sick of hearing multimedia industries whine about losing money to piracy, but yet see them spending ridiculous amounts of money to try and protect their product instead of just plain lowering the cost at retail. In my honest opinion, this would greatly reduce the urge of many people to obtain by any other means a product that they desire without paying for it. Sure it won't eliminate the piracy issue, but it sure will take a bite out of the problem.
It's easy for them to point the finger and call someone who might not be able to afford the "product" a thief for downloading it, but the same could be said about certain companies that put out less than worthwhile products for ridiculous amounts of money. Isn't that also thievery? If not,in the least it's deceptive.
Perhaps the truth of the matter is that the "clients" are tired of getting the bum end of the deal, and would rather get the product for free, and if they really like, go out and purchase it. Let's take the example of software: client x goes out and buys a program to modify his pictures with. He pays a crazy amount of money, only to find out the the product is riddled with bugs, and he has to hunt around the internet to find solutions to make this product work. But that's not the worst of it...he hasn't had the prodict for a full year yet and their's already a newer version out. Can he upgrade his product and get what he paid for in the first place. Probably not, so he'll have to spend even more money to either get an updated version or just purchase the whole program again. Do you think that's honest towards the client? I sure don't and neither do most consumers anymore.
I feel that by giving the client a fare shake, the industries can only expect people to better appreciate the efforts of corporate america to make their products more affordable and thus more accessible to the general public. Larger profit margins are obtained through volume and not single sales. The less it costs the more you sell. Just my rant, but perhaps it'll open peoples eyes. Thanks for reading me. ;o)

Thank You.

I completely agree with recoil. I find that nowdays the price for items that are being debated over over priced. I feel that although I know we wouldn't same if we were in their place, but the entertainment industry can afford to lose a little bit of profit by lowering prices to buy movies or theatre prices. I for one, would be more inclined as to afford myself a collection. I intend to buy all my movies after finishing my education and getting a better job, for only then would I be able to afford it. Couldn't top entertainment executives sacrafice one less diamond on their jeweled encrusted cell phones, or one less gold watch, just as to attract more fans of artists and let more people enjoy life? Life is hard enough, there is no need for anyone to make it harder by exploiting things that make life a little easier by overmilking the profits from it.

As for an offhand remark, for Most of the musicians out there, please make better music. I find that 15 dollars for a cd is a waste of money for the cr*p that comes out nowdays. I remembered when I felt cds were worth the 15 dollars.

-my 2 cents.

"It is only an opinion, in a sea of opinions..."

Here's an idea...

Why don't the respective industries look at stoping piracy a different way? By this I mean make their products more affordable to the general public. Nobody wants to spend 50-90 dollars on a video game that they'll play to it's end only once. Let's face it most of the games that come out today are limited in replayability. As for the movie industry, they could also afford to reduce their profits and by the same token cut their losses if going to the movies or renting a movie would cost less. In my area, catching a movie in the theater with my wife will cost me somewhere around 30 dollars and that includes 2 sodas and some popcorn. Now by my standards that's a lot of money to see a movie that's probably been over-hyped anyway. Sure we see the trailers on tv and stuff, but let's face it the trailers are showing us the best parts of the movie...the rest is usually crap. I grow sick of hearing multimedia industries whine about losing money to piracy, but yet see them spending ridiculous amounts of money to try and protect their product instead of just plain lowering the cost at retail. In my honest opinion, this would greatly reduce the urge of many people to obtain by any other means a product that they desire without paying for it. Sure it won't eliminate the piracy issue, but it sure will take a bite out of the problem.
It's easy for them to point the finger and call someone who might not be able to afford the "product" a thief for downloading it, but the same could be said about certain companies that put out less than worthwhile products for ridiculous amounts of money. Isn't that also thievery? If not,in the least it's deceptive.
Perhaps the truth of the matter is that the "clients" are tired of getting the bum end of the deal, and would rather get the product for free, and if they really like, go out and purchase it. Let's take the example of software: client x goes out and buys a program to modify his pictures with. He pays a crazy amount of money, only to find out the the product is riddled with bugs, and he has to hunt around the internet to find solutions to make this product work. But that's not the worst of it...he hasn't had the prodict for a full year yet and their's already a newer version out. Can he upgrade his product and get what he paid for in the first place. Probably not, so he'll have to spend even more money to either get an updated version or just purchase the whole program again. Do you think that's honest towards the client? I sure don't and neither do most consumers anymore.
I feel that by giving the client a fare shake, the industries can only expect people to better appreciate the efforts of corporate america to make their products more affordable and thus more accessible to the general public. Larger profit margins are obtained through volume and not single sales. The less it costs the more you sell. Just my rant, but perhaps it'll open peoples eyes. Thanks for reading me. ;o)

Thank You.

I completely agree with recoil. I find that nowdays the price for items that are being debated over over priced. I feel that although I know we wouldn't same if we were in their place, but the entertainment industry can afford to lose a little bit of profit by lowering prices to buy movies or theatre prices. I for one, would be more inclined as to afford myself a collection. I intend to buy all my movies after finishing my education and getting a better job, for only then would I be able to afford it. Couldn't top entertainment executives sacrafice one less diamond on their jeweled encrusted cell phones, or one less gold watch, just as to attract more fans of artists and let more people enjoy life? Life is hard enough, there is no need for anyone to make it harder by exploiting things that make life a little easier by overmilking the profits from it.

As for an offhand remark, for Most of the musicians out there, please make better music. I find that 15 dollars for a cd is a waste of money for the cr*p that comes out nowdays. I remembered when I felt cds were worth the 15 dollars.

-my 2 cents.

"It is only an opinion, in a sea of opinions..."

[Xalorous]

they targetted 6 sites taht specialize in TV shows and this stuff stays on?

http://www.getdtsdvd.com/index.shtml

This cannot be legal. They're selling packaged DVD's of movies that are still in theatre. And sites that help TV show enthusiasts to trade episodes of shows (with no money exchanged) are targetted by the MPAA?

Down with piracy, but let us trade our tv shows.

To answer the inevitable question, I equate piracy with someone copying something that is readily available on the market. i.e. DVD's or CD's or books. Bootlegging by taping concerts (where it is not explicitly allowed) or movies is also a form of piracy. Trading recorded episodes via P2P filesharing is similar to trading VHS tapes of those same episodes (except it is faster and higher quality).

[Xalorous]

they targetted 6 sites taht specialize in TV shows and this stuff stays on?

http://www.getdtsdvd.com/index.shtml

This cannot be legal. They're selling packaged DVD's of movies that are still in theatre. And sites that help TV show enthusiasts to trade episodes of shows (with no money exchanged) are targetted by the MPAA?

Down with piracy, but let us trade our tv shows.

To answer the inevitable question, I equate piracy with someone copying something that is readily available on the market. i.e. DVD's or CD's or books. Bootlegging by taping concerts (where it is not explicitly allowed) or movies is also a form of piracy. Trading recorded episodes via P2P filesharing is similar to trading VHS tapes of those same episodes (except it is faster and higher quality).

[Semysig]

Somebody said you are forced to share bits of files that you are currently downloading.
What if you sent the allowed u/l bandwidth to ZERO?
Bittorrent of their site lets you do that.
Would that not prevent the MPAA slime from getting a "signature" off you for whatever file?

Also, I'd just like to add that it's DISGUSTING to burn people for d/l-ing episodes of a BROADCAST TV SERIES! It was already on the air!