Somebody just spent time making a torrent streaming service, and is now paying for the bandwidth it takes to download that torrent content AND to upload it to your browser. What I could quickly see about the service is that the facebook "app" of it doesn't have too many users, dyn.com handles the site DNS (not free) and redstation.com hosts the service (not free).
MegaUpload (and all other "upload"/filesharing websites), Grooveshark.
Google and Facebook are not really giving you access to mostly illegal content, but are still paying their own money for the bandwidth (which is huge, in the case of Facebook).
So no, your assumption is completely incorrect. Even if someone shoved a passthepopcorn torrent in there, (a) that person would likely get banned from ptp, (b) it probably wouldn't work in the first place because joker's servers couldn't join the swarm and (c) the information that the owner of joker can glean from such a torrent file would be almost entirely useless unless the goal is boosting the ratio of the user.
As much as you'd assume about something you've never used, private torrents are actually a well-oiled, quite secure machine. It's easy to think of pirates as incompetent, but Gazelle is actually decent software and the biggest problem I ever faced while involved in that scene was DDoS attacks against the trackers.
Err no. Passkeys were designed so that you could track users without needing IP address -- IP tracking is fragile and doesn't work with multiple peers/ip, which happens very frequency.
> Many trackers also limit the IP addresses that are permitted to join a swarm based upon the same identifier in the torrent file
Once again, not really. Most sites don't really care what IPs you use (so long as they aren't part of blanket banned regions or similar). PTP does not require you disclose your IP, they don't care if you use multiple IPs, and doing so will not flag you for a ban. There are better ways of finding bad users, which includes sharing between trackers.
>(a) that person would likely get banned from ptp, (b) it probably wouldn't work in the first place because joker's servers couldn't join the swarm and (c) the information that the owner of joker can glean from such a torrent file would be almost entirely useless unless the goal is boosting the ratio of the user.
A) No, they wouldn't.
B) Unless joker.com is using a custom bittorrent app (highly unlikely) they can join the swarm just fine
Edit: Still appears to be the case. Get the users unique code (call it what you will) from the .torrent, and understand the RSS URL structure for said website, and you've got yourself download links for all the torrents by using someone else's account.
My understanding of "how is this legal" is the following - the server and server admin has no keys to the data so it would be impossible for them to do DMCA. Put.io has been around for a long time now so I'm pretty sure they've cleared the legal hurdles already.
Why do you feel the need to stick your head into the comment section and spit out a worthless one-line comment about conscience?
Please keep your morality complex out of our technical discussion.
Why is a discussion about the morality of the service implicitly not allowed ? Where is it carved in stone that the morality of our actions or services must not be discussed on Hackernews ?
Who are you to proclaim this, and in such a harsh manner ?
In discussing a service that is designed to allow users to conduct piracy, a discussion of the morality of that act is entirely permissible.
If I wanted to criticize hyperbovine's comment I would say that it didn't have any in depth thoughts or insight. But that isn't what you did, and the content of your reply is loaded with a lot of pre-recorded attacks.
But your response to him was quite hostile, far out of proportion to the parent comment. I find your aggression towards the topic to be very negative
"morality complex" ? Do you mean to imply that morals are some kind of defect that reasonable people should not be burdened with ?
When you explain to me why a guy selling one tomato that once eaten can not be replicated and a digital good that once replicated loses none of it's quality are the same, I'll start talking about conscience.
ps. I'm not saying that people should not pay for digital content. But when there are farmers out there who sell their products under the same rules Sony Entertainment sells mp3's of songs written 20 years in digital format, sorry there's something utterly wrong with the system.
To that question my answer would be a combination of basic income and crowdfunding.
Now extrapolate from "Game of Thrones" to "Most entertainment experiences on the scale of Game of Thrones," and you quickly realize that neither crowdfunding nor basic income are adequate for pretty much any large-scale production. Hence, payment. You can rationalize not paying, but it doesn't change the fact that the experiences you enjoy wouldn't exist without people who do pay for them.
And, assuming you are an advocate for copyright since you haven't proposed anything else, have you ever considered what we're missing out on because of it? Copyright excludes a metric ton of content production by definition. It doesn't allow you to do anything that would otherwise not be possible, but forbids a lot that otherwise would be possible. Of course it's somewhat harder to point to examples that cannot even exist under the current regime, but use your imagination. There's a huge advantage in cost and effort in being able to build on what came before, compared to making everything from scratch every single time.
Open Source software and Wikipedia are perhaps the closest examples to what would be possible, but they're still very much hindered by copyright.
Beyond that, it's telling that you set up a strawman belief system and then bashed it without asking whether I actually hold those beliefs.
How do connections relate to paid content? Do they somehow come at a massive cost?
I did point out that I might be constructing a strawman, but seeing as you have yet to propose any alternative and copyright is in fact the status quo, it seemed like a reasonable assumption. Perhaps I should have added a question mark for emphasis, but feel free to clarify your position at any time.
I'd rather not subject my personal belief system to public analysis, because the average public opinion on beliefs is an average belief system, and the average belief system in any era has almost always been crazy.
People have been forking up $3-4 million for very niche adventure and old-school rpg games. Star Citizen is closing in on $60 million. This is with crowdfunding still in its infancy and projects that have orders of magnitude less interest than Game of Thrones. If people, both producers and consumers, don't care enough about Game of Thrones to make it happen, then so be it. But I don't believe that would be the case.
If the money would just be printed, it would of course cause inflation, but that's not redistribution, it's just distribution.
It still doesn't make sense to me that basic income will reduce costs in other sectors, but I'm probably just not smart enough to understand how.
I'm from Norway, where we already have a big welfare system funded by a progressive tax system. And which would already be able to fund most of a basic income. So obviously the idea of redistribution isn't that big of an issue around these parts. As a result, I'm perhaps too quick to assume funding would be done through taxation.
Not sure what you mean by "other sectors". Other relative to which sector(s)?
I misspoke earlier. I meant "I don't understand how basic income could reduce the costs you mentioned earlier, like production costs." But I'd like to. Do you have some time to explain why this works?
I assumed it would be something like: People are given money in order to cover basic costs of living. But because everyone is given the same amount of money, that will increase all costs throughout the economy, because if people have this basic amount of money, people are free to charge even more for their products and services, since they know people will be able to afford it.
That logic is admittedly a little convoluted and probably incorrect, because I haven't spent much time thinking about this.
So first of all, a basic income would be a lot more transformative to society than it would seem at first glance. It's not just about people getting more money to spend. Crime would go down, peoples health would improve and we would trust each other much more since there's much less reason to lie and cheat just to get by (which is considered a major factor in the success of the Scandinavian model.) We'd need less police, less health care, and insurance costs would go down. And of course the entire means-testing bureaucracy would be unnecessary.
Then there's the labour market. Not being required to hold a job, and the increased bargaining power that entails, could lead to a number of different outcomes that are sometimes hard to predict. Shitty jobs would either become less shitty, pay better (which of course makes it more expensive for the employer), or get automated if it's cost-effective. As would jobs individually considered harmful, meaningless or counter-productive, like the military, weapons manufacturing, telemarkting and advertising, to name a few. People would likely get a lot more educated, and the education system would hopefully transform from being a production line of worker drones to actually encouraging curiosity and learning. Innovation would flourish, since anyone could just go out and do their own thing without risking homelessness. Cooperatives would be much more prevalent. "Good" jobs might pay less, since there would be a lot more well-educated labour available.
But here's the kicker: when having a job is no longer essential, there's no reason to artificially create jobs. We could stop encouraging consumerism and infinite growth, and institute policies that are untouchable today because they remove jobs or hinder job creation. Which would cause people to spend more time and energy on what they really want to do, things that actually matter, rather than hoarding stuff. Many would work less, others more, because they're able to do work they enjoy and don't have to do it primarily for material gains. Those with small children or elderly parents could spend more time taking care of them themselves, instead of shipping them off to some institution or other.
A lot of work that's good but difficult or impossible to monetize, that currently need to be supported by advertising or considered charity, could actually be done full-time without having to spend your time fundraising or degrading your work with advertisements. It could be done part-time alongside a part-time job for some extra spending money, or on a break from your ordinary job. I think we'd see a huge increase in political activism, journalism, and a transformation in how democracy would work in general. Finally, if we got rid of copyright, the production of creative works would be included in this category, and while not very likely, it would be possible to produce something like Game of Thrones without a single cent of funding.
If all that waste and abuse could be eliminated, or significantly reduced, it would reduce cost at every step of the production chain. Profit margins, and therefore prices, would be kept down unless for some reason competition decreases. Prices might even be lowered further if there's less manipulative marketing creating artificial demand. Skilled labour might be cheaper because there's more of it available, and if it's something people really want to work on I believe they'd care less about the paycheck and more about doing what the want to do.
Copyright doesn't encourage content production, it actively discourages it. It doesn't allow anyone to do anything they couldn't have done without copyright, but forbids you to do a whole bunch of things you otherwise could. And even what's constituted "fair use" is often practically impossible because the various draconian enforcement schemes (e.g. Youtubes ContentID) don't understand the concept.
Copyright doesn't give anyone any rights. It takes rights away from everyone other than the "rights holder". It doesn't protect, it punishes.
Beware of the newspeak.
Copyright also has effects that discourage certain types of creation, but that doesn't erase the encouragement it provides as well.
I'm not particularly creative, so I'm sure a creative person could come up with a better list.
It's likely that it's caching material for torrents. I tried Guardians of the Galaxy and could skip almost all the way to the end of the film when it had only just begun.
Um. I'm not quite sure the set "thinks this is interesting" is entirely included within "has the ability to contribute to the Webtorrent project". In fact, I think the former more than likely has a bigger intersect with "will probably break the Webtorrent project and/or disrupt the community" than with the positive contributor set.
That said, its likely that they're cacheing.
This isn't a torrent client in your browser, the server actually does the torrenting for you and then streams the file to you as it's downloading on the server.
If so, then high-profile and particularly-irritating pirates will be targeted, and if the laws don't specifically make it illegal then they will be twisted to enable prosecution anyway.
In the United States, prosecutors routinely fabricate financial returns for piracy, that way it's a felony instead of a misdemeanor. They do this by making the argument that the movies they downloaded for personal viewing constitute financial proceeds.
When such a thing is not only possible, but standard operating procedure, asking about the legal ramifications are silly. You're probably still safe just by being part of the herd, but they've been known to single out people to make examples of too.
For you, it is copyright infringement. But it's hard to catch you. I guess you are vulnerable to joker.org giving you up if they get subpoenaed, if they keep records.
For joker.org, that depends on how they are classified. It probably does not qualify for a transitory network safeharbor because 1) if it's servers are uploading it is giving the file to more than one person and 2) joker.org is arguably modifying the content by assembling it into a stream. Though I could be convinced it isn't modifying it just by streaming it. If they are caching, it would also bust their safeharbor.
If it is classified as a §512(c) site, it has a better argument actually. Though I don't see a DMCA agent listed on the site.
"The court said: Whether looking at a cached copy of protected content, without downloading or printing it, amounts to infringement. Lower courts held that it does, a finding unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court.".
See Richard O'Dwyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O%27Dwyer
A download would classed as anything that didn't satisfy those conditions. So if you're storing something for the purposes of making use of it later it would fall outside the exception as it would not be temporary or transient.
Technically your browser downloads content of course, but provided the content is only viewed whilst you are in the browser and not retained following the end of your browser session (or were merely retained in your cache), this would not constitute a download for the purposes of putting a user outside the exception to infringement under Art 5(1).
Here's the US-Turkey extradition treaty:
If it does live long, i might start to wonder if this is some RIAA like honeypot system to have users report where they get their torrent downloads from by sharing the links directly.
Just my penny.
Different mkv from Kickass: format not supported (without loading, apparently, though I wonder if it's cached given that it was Guardians of the Galaxy)
TV episode of Gotham: same as for previous
Something is happening because it says e.g. 'Gotham' in the top and retrieves a nice faded background of the cast but I keep getting 'format not supported'
EDIT: seems to be my browser or connection; trying a different machine on a different IP and it works very nicely and quickly indeed.
Could you provide us with a little info on the technologies behind it?
If this thing only gives content to you and you don't give anything back than it's pretty cool.
So all in all, hardly a new concept, but this looks really convenient to use.
As for prosecution of torrent seeders, that's not really possible anymore IIRC, since the "Vorratsdatenspeicherung" (= stockpile saving of which IP address has been connect to which landline, in case it is needed for law enforcement) has been declared illegal.
AFAIK movie torrents were never really monitored, the focus was always on the latest music releases. I also haven't heard of any fines for torrenting in the last 2-3 years, but that might be because I'm not really in that age anymore.
Or if you want to be extra careful, use a VPN. ipredator is reasonably good, and you get an IP number from Sweden so you can also bypass all the GEMA crap.
I'd say no.
I would not use it if I'd fear to be discovered.
With both Popcorn Time and this tool (site) I could receive a copyright infringement notice. While the streaming sites that stream the latest from the Pirate Bay & more are liable. Further, by the letter of the law, me watching these streams is perfectly legal; no copyright notice will be received.
Maybe the streaming sites I speak of are not well known or not openly spoken about because they'll get shut down?
I've never seen one that didn't. Certainly the most common containers do.
Good job, I hope you find a way to make it stick around!
For recent developments, take a look at http://webtorrent.io
Seems like there's some caching going on. Good idea.
Didn't it show an ad first? Even if you're fast at skipping, it's still enough time to preload the file in the background.
I guess what he's working on at this moment... I guess nothing ?
Normally you request what ever chunk a seeder has available. But instead you request in order. This slows your speed (slightly), but a torrent likely will still finish before the movie has making the point moot.