In theory, Apple et al could also use BT to distribute movies, yes? Have iTunes run a modified BT client that only connects to other approved clients?
This isn't to say that you shouldn't give directly to support your favorite public radio shows and/or your local public radio station, naturally.
If that's all, it seems like a small price for drastically reduced hosting costs. And if there isn't already, there should be a protocol for "distribute via BitTorrent but ping the original seeder to let them know".
First you have to create the possibility for the people to download your podcast as a torrent. This sounds easy but is additional work. A new project that wants to tackle this is http://bitlove.org/ where podcasters just have to add their regular feed and the site will create a bittorrent feed and seed the torrents (extensive German descrpition: http://metaebene.me/2012/05/06/bitlove/)
The other problem is that users need to be able to easily download the torrent feeds. Some bittorrent clients support feeds, but right now only one podcast client understands bittorrent: http://http://www.getmiro.com/
I can't seem to find the exact message they sent me, but I believe the issue is that their licensing of content (mostly the music) on the show has specific rules about how that content is distributed (or not distributed).
I am annoyed when such a marvelous technical solution is seen as nothing more than a shady, illegal software. ☹
There is _one_ legitimate use for a lock pick set: to unlock something you own that you've accidentally locked yourself out of. There are literally billions of uses for BT: every large public (legal) file that's currently distributed via centralized server.
Some people use lock picks to unlock doors that they don't have permission to much in the same way that some people use BitTorrent to transfer data they don't have permission to.
(Personally I know exactly what you're talking about, but trying to hang your case on an obscure sport isn't doing it any favors. The lockpick analogy is bad and a car analogy would serve you much better.)
(You know, as long as we're speaking in analogies)
There's also an interesting economic to torrents...the crappier the content, the fewer people seed. The fewer people that seed, the harder it is to get and the longer it takes. On the flip side, really great content gets seeded like crazy, and everyone can enjoy it quickly.
Good content gets a lot of seeders, because they keep it for longer.
How is their DRM "not very restrictive" unless you mean you can download DRM free if you can afford an iPhone (I think that's still true?). You can watch shows for 1 week before they're locked, can't you.
But yes last time I used it they installed a hidden application called Kontiki that there's practically no control over that leeches bandwidth without asking.
So, using BT and seeding becomes a less valid option. Still, I'll happily admit that things are changing, and if NZ is a yardstick of the bad, then BT as a distribution mechanism (backed by, say, Akamai or other CDNs) for legal content could definitely take off.
That said, as someone else alluded to, maintaining that CDN with that bandwidth is probably crushingly expensive, and is something only Blizzard and a few others could pull off.
besides hiring the guy? i mean, one would think responsible news outlets (are there any?) would request valves comment everytime they publish the RIAA side, since valve profits buckets from it.
And, I don't know that I can recall many content folks arguing that BitTorrent as a whole should be blocked. My memory is that they complain that BitTorrent is heavily used for piracy (which is factually accurate), and propose ways to stop the piracy. For example SOPA did not target BitTorrent as a protocol or technology, but instead tried to shut down foreign websites that provide links to pirated content.
1) Pirating movies, music, etc...
2) Downloading Linux distributions.
BitTorrent is a GREAT content delivery mechanism. It decreases download time, decreases bandwidth costs (for everyone), ensures that file remain available as long as there are seeds (i.e. no way to censor a rogue file from a central point of control (assuming DHT is in use of course)), and checks every chunk and automatically redownloads if corruption is discovered. It's really pretty awesome.
Imagine I'm an Evil Doer(tm) and I decide to go to a porn site and download "Sick fetishes 3" just so I can publish the list of IP addresses that were part of my BT swarm.
With BT right now, you as a user are probably savvy enough to know that risk and accept it, but if it was built right into the the browser, a lot of bad things could happen.
It's too bad too, because I'd love to see a much bigger adoption of BT.
Bittorrent does not download files sequentially from the beginning to the end, but it grabs a piece here, a piece there. This way it can achieve greater availability and faster transfers for everyone.
It's definitely not stealing. I'm not sure what the preferred legal term for "pirating" is right now, but it's something like "intellectual property infringement". Stealing implies that you removed the original from the owner and refuse to give it back. That is not the case.
There are lots of reasons to look at the content industry and say "You are screwing us over, taking our rights and laughing all the way to the bank while you cry to our faces, you suck" but making up bullshit only makes you seem like you’re pedaling it too.
Instead of buying it, you took it. That's basically stealing.
None of that can happen to you if you pirate an album. Framing the issue to make it sound like you can be a criminal facing time in jail for downloading an album is absurd. It's very far removed from reality and builds a culture of hatred and fear that is not actually present.
Stealing and pirating music are very different things. It's wrong to talk about them as though they are the same. That's the only point I'm trying to make.
Pirating digital content is wrong. It's an issue that urgently needs attention. I'm not trying to justify the actions or call out in support of pirates. I am trying to make sure everyone knows that "stealing" has an important legal definition that is irrelevant to pirating music.
In the minds of everyone who is not in the group that makes that distinction it sounds like you're trying to justify something. It's essentially identical to the argument college kids make to me all the time: "I'm not stealing anything, I'm pirating it." Of course you are, but if I explained this issue to, say, a Senator, they would say it's stealing. At that point, yes, correct said Senator, then you're in a real discussion about a real issue. Swooping in and correcting some guy who casually uses the term "stealing" on an Internet form just grates on me because you sound like those college kids trying to justify themselves.
It's as if you correct everyone who uses the term "soccer" by saying "It's actually 'football'" or correcting everyone who conflates a alligator and a crocodile in casual conversation. In the end people will just ignore you.
I am not "swooping in," I noticed your comment and decided to remark that your terminology is incorrect. I did this because by referring to it as stealing you are taking part in the rhetoric that supports such acts as PIPA and SOPA.
We correct you because you're using misleading terminology, as cryptoz explained.
Language matters and it's hard to have a useful discussion when either side keeps on falling back to prejudiced terminology.
Stealing and pirating are both taking something that is not rightfully yours, but they are barely in the same category of crime.
In US jurisdictions, that's a misdemeanor.
Theft would be a criminal offence. Shop-lifting would be counted as theft.
Violating copyrights is illegal, but it's not a criminal offence. You're not going to be arrested for it. The Crown Prosecution Service won't do anything.
The rights holders can sue for loss of earnings - that's 79pence per track. They can try and sue for the stuff you've shared.
Copyright violation becomes criminal offence if done as part of trade - burning movies to DVD and selling them, for example.
And unless the UK has draconian shoplifting laws I've never heard of, the same holds true there.
People get fined for shoplifting. Sometimes they don't pay the fines. They go to prison for not paying fines.
Also, Canada is signatory to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights; having collections of pirated material deemed to be of "commercial scale" is a criminal offense.
I get that you're trying to distinguish between what are often civil vs. criminal matters, but it's a bit of a stretch. "Stealing" is a term that gets used for a lot of things other than literal theft in criminal law.
No. While the large numbers illustrate my point better, the small ones hold true as well. Steal one album: arrest, criminal record. Download one album: nothing.
> Also, Canada is signatory to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights; having collections of pirated material deemed to be of "commercial scale" is a criminal offense.
I'll have to look into that - thanks.
Is reading a book in a library stealing? Listening to a song on the radio? Watching a show over broadcast TV? What if I avoid commercials and never buy the TV show or album on disc? In utter isolation is that any different than someone torrenting an album and never buying it?
And how does it change things if some people who torrent albums nevertheless spend money on music? The whole premise of sharing being "piracy" is the idea that uncompensated consumption represents a loss of a sale. But is that any more or less true than it is with radio or TV?
No. The book was purchased. In some cases the book is purchased directly by the library. In other cases it was purchased by a citizen and then donated to the library when they were done with it. But in any case, each copy of the book (or CD or DVD) was purchased. You are borrowing a purchased copy and will return it when finished. Then someone else will borrow it. That is fair use. If you don't return it to the library, then it might be considered stealing.
> Listening to a song on the radio?
No. Radio stations have contracts in place with the various sources of the music that allows them to broadcast the music. Radio stations cover this cost by selling ads. Pay radio allows you to get the same content commercial free. But your subscription is covering the station's costs. I'm pretty sure there is some sort of royalty payments, but I'm not sure exactly how those work from one station to the next.
> Watching a show over broadcast TV?
No. TV stations a generally affiliates of a higher network that is actually creating the show. Other stations also pay for syndicated shows once they have reached a certain age. TV also uses the ad model and you also find pay stations (like HBO, etc). I would imagine the payment contracts in broadcast TV are also similar to radio.
> What if I avoid commercials...
This is an issue that scared the networks early on when things like TiVo and other DVRs were popping up. I'm pretty sure that commercial avoidance is pretty similar to web ads in that you can't force people to watch them. Even if you were watching it live and could not fast forward... that is typically when you would use the toilet or grab a snack.
So the big difference between all those things and piracy is that those things are approved methods of controlled content delivery and each has a payment structure in place that allows the content creator to receive compensation. Straight up piracy lacks that compensation.
> how does it change things if some people who torrent albums nevertheless spend money on music?
Doesn't matter. That is like saying it is ok to jump the subway turnstile today because you paid the fare 3 times last week.
For most things to appear on BT or elsewhere, someone has to buy them first, too.
Your argument, therefore, is invalid.
As for the rest, your whole point hinges on "it's approved content distribution".
I say that is bullshit. You can and should not be able to control distribution of
digital content. It's one of the greatest blessings of humanity to be able to access,
hand on and build upon its shared heritage. We should embrace it as the monumental
achievement it is - but here we are, having to justify it.
This entire "problem" amounts to an industry that is - excuse the language - butthurt
about having lost their business model to technological progress, and feels entitled
to being granted an exception by cementing said business model into law. This needs to
stop before any more permanent damage is done.
>each has a payment structure in place that allows the content creator to
receive compensation. Straight up piracy lacks that compensation.
Allow me to laugh, because the last people who benefit by this system are content creators.
If you seriously believe copyright is, was or will be for creators, you're in for a bad surprise
if you ever take a look at the history of what probably was the most harmful idea mankind ever
allowed to happen.
And many of the compensation methods are merely forced monopolies, which don't
have any validity beyond "the law says so". The law is wrong. It therefore needs
to be changed. As long as that hasn't been done: ignore it. Subvert it. Attack it.
In other words: pirate. And try to support the creators, while you're at it. And I mean
the creators, not the copyright industry.
The fundamental difference is that BT assumes you make a copy. Everyone who gets a copy has that copy forever, essentially gaining all the benefits of purchase. At a library, however, you get it for 3 weeks and then you bring it back. It's protected by the doctrine of first sale which says that I can do what I wish with the physical thing that I own, include lending it or reselling it. Digital copies are not "lent" they are copied and never need to be returned.
>Allow me to laugh, because the last people who benefit by this system are content creators. If you seriously believe copyright is, was or will be for creators, you're in for a bad surprise if you ever take a look at the history of what probably was the most harmful idea mankind ever allowed to happen.
This argument... is patently untrue. If I publish a book, everyone who buys a copy puts money in my pocket. Everyone who downloads it without buying it gets all the benefits of my work without compensating me. To make the argument your making is unfair to all the people who make their living producing content.
Here's the deal, I get your point. I agree with it. I think the content industry (I make a distinction from the copyright industry because I think copyright, in its intended form is a good thing) is crappy. It continually tries to subvert our rights (our right to the free flow of information, i.e. net neutrality, our right to the public domain, our right to use our content, our right to fair use, etc.). That's bad. But don't walk around trying to say that downloading stuff is not stealing. It is. Don't consume the content if the industry bothers you that much. Buy your music directly from artists, go to the opera, read only public domain books, whatever, hell, even steal it, but don't pretend you're doing the writer or musician a favor.
So? If I really wanted, I could make a copy of a book from the library, too. The possibilities
are endless, but all of them are less convenient and cost more than a digital copy. Other than
that, there is no factual difference. Your argument is still invalid.
>This argument... is patently untrue.
Except it isn't. Unless you define "benefits from the system" as "gets a very small slice of
the overall profits from a sale, the rest of which is swallowed by a useless industry".
>Everyone who downloads it without buying it gets all the benefits of my work without compensating me.
Am I obliged to pay you? No. You demand to be payed for the costless act of copying your book.
That's ridiculous. If you want to be compensated for actually writing the book, find alternate
ways of doing so (there's Kickstarter, for example). Nobody is entitled to make a living of selling
copies of a non-scarce good. It's cool if you can, but not if that involves needing an artificial
monopoly on said non-scarce good.
I take the liberal approach here: I can't force you to give me things, but neither can you stop me
(or others) from sharing them.
>But don't walk around trying to say that downloading stuff is not stealing.
But it isn't, no matter how much you some people try to insist it is. There is no valid definition
of "stealing" that could be applied to the act of sharing digital data. None. Argumentum ad nauseam
won't make it any more true, either.
>Don't consume the content if the industry bothers you that much. Buy your
music directly from artists, go to the opera, read only public domain books,
whatever, hell, even steal it, but don't pretend you're doing the writer or
musician a favor.
How is this mutually exclusive? I enjoy going to concerts - which is how musicians
can (and do) make money these days. I also have quite a lot of merchandise in the form
of T-shirts. Services and services - both are business models with a future. Charging
for exclusive access to a non-scarce resource, by contrast, isn't.
Yet every day new bands are signing up with this 'useless industry' trying to gain more exposure and money than they would without this 'useless industry'.
> Am I obliged to pay you? No. You demand to be payed for the costless act of copying your book. That's ridiculous.
This statement is utterly ridiculous. Just because something is easy to copy means it should be free? I can easily copy a 100$ bill on my Xerox machine at work, I should be able to do this without consequence? You must not be in the content creation industry and rely on it to pay your rent. The art, creativity and experience are where the value lies in a book, not in the 'copy', so yes I as a content creator do have a right to charge you to enjoy my art.
An common, but unproven claim, which also confuses content creation
with distribution. It's the monopoly over the latter that I and many others
object to. We are currently seeing the beginning of an era where sharing and
remixing is giving rise to an unprecedented number of new art and culture. It
has never been easier to produce content.
>It is a time-limited monopoly designed to promote progress in science and arts.
Though I'm from Europe, I'm quite familiar with that phrase, and I don't buy it.
The problem with it is that it's from a time where the copyright industry was, to
a certain degree, necessary for the dissemination of content. The founding fathers
could have never even anticipated something like the Internet and technological
advancements like BitTorrent and other file-sharing services, which pretty much
invalidate a lot of the assumptions made when the constitution was written.
Also, as far as I remember, copyright is merely something congress is allowed to
make laws about, not a constitutionally granted right.
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. 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, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
The difference is that the book still only exists as one copy that is transferred from one entity to another. This is fair use. That is the same reason it is ok to give/sell your cd to someone else. You have relinquished ownership of it and passed it to someone else. That is how the used goods market works. That does not include making copies of something to distribute. My argument about books is not invalid.
It was my mistake to use the word "creator" instead of "source". Yes, the creator generally does not benefit as such. That is between him and the label/distributor/etc. How noble of you to stick up for the underpaid content creator by not paying for the result of his work at all. I applaud you, sir.
For everything else you said... heard it before. Don't buy it. It is all just rationalizing the behavior.
I do love it when people wax poetic when it comes to piracy discussions online like this. By the above you mean the monumental achievement it is like having access to data such as the Human Genome Project, or online journals and data related to AIDS, cancer and other research correct?
Please don't try and state it is a human right to have free, immediate access to the latest Lady Gaga album and Game of Thrones for free.
: Free as in speech, like with Free Software. Copyright and protection of Free
Speech are mutually exclusive. You can't have one while having the other.
Who are you asking? Because libraries (books; music; games) have all been attacked by industry. Radio has been attacked by industry. Advert-avoidance technology has been attacked by industry.
Disney freaked out when video was introduced because they couldn't work out how to charge each person for watching the movie. They'd have one sale, but a mom and pop and two kids would be watching, and three of them wouldn't have paid.
Rational thought is going to fail when you're up against that.
It makes no sense but I had several hours to play with it while waiting for SC2. I found similar complaints on their forums so hopefully they'll fix it someday.
4) Distributing music and movies legally (Sub Pop, Nine Inch Nails, CBC)
5) Backend updates for distributed server systems (Facebook, Twitter)
I paid my $5 and proceeded to download, but I have a crappy connection and kept getting disconnected. LCK puts a 4 download limit on his shows.
Easiest thing to do was to find a torrent. I'd already paid my $5, so I felt OK about it. Bonus: it downloaded faster than from his site, and he didn't have to serve all the bits.
The only immediate concern that springs to mind is that if you manage to crack into this channel, you could potentially gain access to millions of computers in next to no time. In fact, I believe botnets work similar to this (from what I can remember of the Reddit botnet AMA...
"Oh, pirates are the most common users of BitTorrent? But BitTorrent is better than traditional server->client downloads. More companies/people/whatever should be providing BitTorrent alternatives for downloading."
"Oh, pirates are the most common users of BitTorrent? But BitTorrent is better than traditional server->client downloads. It's a shame, but I guess we have to hinder BitTorrent traffic. Oh, what could have been!"
Except at my work, where they monitor and squash torrent connections. Sigh. OK, so I'll tie up the work internet downloading one big file from one busy place.
When has this actually happened? I don't know of anyone who has said that bittorrent is inherently illegal, they've just argued that it's mostly used for illegal activities. It's not that bars are illegal, it's that 80% of the people in that bar meet to smuggle things on the black market. That invites attention toward the medium.
It's a valid complaint. Bittorrent is abused for piracy a lot. It's silly to pretend otherwise. But this is a case where you can't shut down the medium just because it's abused. In some cases it actually is a perfectly valid solution, but this just isn't one of them.
I think that they might come to understand that, but I don't think they assume bittorrent is itself illegal. They just see it as a medium for copyright infringement. Who wouldn't at least consider attacking a widely abused medium?
aria2c --split=20 MIRROR1 MIRROR2 MIRROR3 MIRROR4 … MIRROR20
At least that's what I think is their reasoning.
The purpose of blocking isn't to block all pirating (which it fails at), but to significantly reduce bandwidth (which it does).
1.) Limited, free, online streaming of films (a la NPR doing previews of new music releases).
2.) Seed torrents of films that are heavily advertised. Essentially, give consumers the whole film, but overlay ads during it or edit in commercial breaks.
3.) Post the first :30 minutes of new films as torrents/streaming and offer a few bucks off your movie ticket if you check it out in theaters.
Any of these could easily be attempted for a new major release. Pick a film that's almost guaranteed to be a hit and try one of the above. You're bound to get some interesting data either way.
Will is clutching at straws here
Ubuntu have a bittorrent client, and everyone knows that's only used to pirate movies and music! so it's a facilitator.
(Not that I want to shoot you :)
I don't think your decision is very logical, though. An AK-47 is a pretty craptastic rifle -- unless you're going to be trudging for miles and miles without a cleaning kit, you don't need its legendary reliability. If you need the rapid fire, then there are one of two issues here. The first, is that the deer are coming at you in such quantities and ferocity that suppressive fire is needed, then you're going to need at least a platoon sized group here, possibly with airstrike backup, and well-coordinated plans for dealing with the cervine hordes. Either that, or you are a pretty crappy shot, and need to spend some range time before you try hunting.
Argument A: While BitTorrent is widely used for piracy, it has practical uses too so please don't ban it outright.
Argument B: While the AK-47 is widely used for mass shootings, it has practical uses too so please don't ban it outright.
Argument X: While [some thing] is widely used for [some bad stuff], it has practical uses too so please don't ban it outright.
But as others have pointed out, the AK-47 is not a suitable hunting weapon... unless you plan to totally mess up the deer.
An AK-47 fires a 7.62x39mm round, which is smaller than rounds like a .30-30 (7.62x51) or .30-06 (7.62x63), commonly used for deer hunting.
And as I mentioned in another comment, while an AK-47 is not an ideal rifle for hunting, it is a very cost effective choice.
Please consider hackers all over the globe.