Comments on: TorrentSpy begins weeding out copyright content

As company battles accusations that it aids copyright violators, TorrentSpy founder launches filtering system.

[`WarpKat]

This is what I fail to understand.

"In an interview, Rothken acknowledged that using hash marks to identify content is not foolproof. If a file is altered then the system may not recognize it."

Why do the copyright owners think that an automated system will be the answer to this?

What they should be doing is personally monitoring these sites and respectfully requesting the content be removed by the aggregator (sp?).

Forcing a company to implement a faulty (automatic) filtering system on such a dynamic exchange service is probably the WORSE thing you can do because, as high-def DVD copy protection has shown, there will be adaptations to it that will nullify its purpose and use.

It's just plain stupid and a big waste of time.

[limefan913]

Yes, but...

The companies don't always want to do this, and you may not realize just how much stuff is on a BitTorrent tracker. There is access to tens of thousands of copyrighted products.

This said, I still hate automated filters... or filters in general.

[Mousefinger]

They WANT Them To Fail

The copyright owners don't want these automated systems to work. That's why they're flawed. They want them to fail, so that they can use the courts to shut down these sites once these flawed systems don't work. They can point at a site like TorrentSpy and say, "see, they're still not complying to the law.".

You see, this isn't about copyrights: this is about controlling distribution. The copyright issue is a red herring. Copyright owners down want us to stop downloading; they want us to download FROM THEM ... not some third party competitor.

It's like prohibition: he who control distribution is King.

[wylbur]

oi oi

Gosh, everybody hates copyright. Everybody wants movies,
music, and books to be free, but why would I write a book if it is
just going to get copied for free (unless I've made a killing on
options from tech companies like Mr. Lessig, Esq. and don't
need the money. He's better than Deridas who sues anyone who
appropriates his work, but if the creative commons licensing
were not an essential part of the cult of Lessig you can rest
assured he would use traditional copyright).

As for defeatable filtration systems. Once somebody has
deliberately altered media content to fake out the filtering
system two things come into play: 1. You have a much easier
time convincing a judge or jury that the perpetrator knew what
they were doing was illegal and 2. Courts have historically given
artists some protection of their work from alteration (So you
can't buy a big Jackson Pollock and cut it into six "undiscovered"
small ones).

Clearly the aggregators of this type of content have been
benefiting materially from copyright infringers, though they
claim immunity under DCMA. As an aggregator there is
protection in making a good faith effort to make posting of
copyrighted material difficult. Particularly given the tight knit
community of users that generally starts with friends of the
programmers, I think adding filtration protects the principals of
the business from allegation of racketeering, collusion with
infringers, and enterprise corruption.

As far as forcing the copyright holders to monitor sites, the
status quo today: That is a very expensive proposition. If you
have a catalog of 30,000 sound recordings, you have a lot of
work to protect those recordings (remember, under 10% of CDs
ever break even, movies and music are actually a risky business).
Ultimately the cost of protecting copyright will be passed on to
consumers.

[ljfordman]

Simply Amazing

I really get such a kick on how so many resources are being used to stop someone from wasting hours downloading poor quality copywrited material instead of stopping the rampant porn being distributed every day. If even half of these resources are redirected to limiting the kiddie porn and violent filth it would be a benefit to society. I'd rather see some kid spend 6 hours trying to download a pirated cartoon movie instead of being blasted on the screen with porn links.

[opendev]

Would Have To Agree

I would have to agree but the war the MPAA and RIAA are waging on piracy is not inhibiting anyone from addressing porn or other vile content distributed through P2P networks or the internet.

As a matter of fact late last year the Department of Justice tried to increase Internet Service Provider data retention policies to 2 years in order to combat this as said records would be available for the DoJ to subpoena the ISP for to investigate said customer.

Not entirely a pleasant thought when it comes to having 2 years worth of data on your internet activities stored away if you participate in any type of eCommerce.

[alexgieg]

Alternative

All hail our new ThePirateBay.org overlords.

[ethana2]

This is pathetic.

Free culture would be a heck of a lot simpler.

If we get enough people making good stuff under creative commons, like all the awsome code we have under the gpl, we won't need the MaFIAA any more than I now need Microsoft. I'd like to see that day.

I don't think we can stop them from being fascist about the distribution of their enslaved information, so I propose we revolt. Seriously- if everyone who makes media for free anyway used the cc license, it could all be collected together on a completely legal site, and once stuff got awesome enough, it would effectively force the industry to be reasonable or, well, die. I'm fine with either.

[BrandonEubanks]

Did you forget that this is a capitalist society?

Seriously, did you forget? People make copyrighted material to
make money. As much as I love BitTorrent, I can not argue with
the basic premise that a person should be paid for their work if
they so desire. Now, think about the resources required to make
a descent movie that most of the people (or even a significant
minority) would like to see. There is no way that the open
source model as it is today could be applied to make a
production quality movie. Now, lets look at the open source's
successes. We have Linux. Well, that is not doing great in the
grand scheme of things. And it took what 15 years to get where
it is now. Under a corporate model, there would have been a
much more focused approach that would have produced a
comparable product much quicker. Now, don't interpret this as
an anti-open source post because it is not. Open source
projects are great piece of the computer culture and a necessary
part but, that model can not be applied to everything.