"The Feds are not cracking down on the technology, they are cracking down on sites that distrubute the stolen property. Huge difference."

Sorry, that's wrong. Why did Napster disappear? Napster never hosted a single copyrighted file. All the files were on people's computers. All Napster did was allow you to search for files on other people's computers and download them.

Bittorrent is the same technology, decentralized. The only reason they have to deal with bittorrent on a site by site basis is because there is no central server, only sites that point to people who have pirated items on their computers. There are no pirated files on bittorrent sites

Do you think if I just post a link pointing to a file on YOUR computer that I am "distributing"? I never host the file, I never touch the file, it was never in my posession. When the link is clicked it isn't a request to my server, it is to the pirates server.

I think they are abusing the law to shut down and punish sites that AREN'T HOSTING movies. The sites get shut down, and the people hosting the movies more often than not keep right on hosting them.

"RIAA is not law enforcement last I checked"

Yet they can subpeona personal information from ISPs without knowing who they are dealing with, or even whether or not the file was really pirated. The RIAA and MPAA have had sites shut down, and sued people who only had files that were named similarly to copyrighted material.

For a few years the justice system has just opened the doors to their vigilante bullshit, and it needs to stop.

My 2 cents well let me tell you first off that i did download Star Wars III and still have it on my pc...but i did not download it til i went to see it in the theatre!! i mean really who really wants to watch a s**t quality movie that is supposed to be the most biggest eye candy movie of all time (so they say)...and furthermore i will be buying it as well when it is released on DVD...watchin it at home will never replace seeing it in theatre..um sure you can all agree! not to mention i will be goin again this saturday to see it in the theatre yet again for the second time..and have already watched the downloaded version i have more then enough times! so am i the bad guy????SURE if you wanna call it that...but i have paid my $10 once and will again! on top of that i own a recording studio and use these sites to make my music available to people that may never have the chance to buy my CD.. As well to mention i am not one of those people that think everything should be free!! i have a nice DVD & VHS collection and have spent retarded amounts of money on music! i have at least 1000 tapes about 400 hundred CD's and 20 crates of records....so once again am i a bad guy for downloading the new Coldplay album? SURE....but i really think i have giving the movie and music industry more then enough of my money!! and no this doesnt mean i'm never goin to buy movies or music ever again...it means that once and awhile sumthin fer free is nice! so you can point yer finger at me all you like calling me the bad guy.....but i really dont think i am! peas cityboy

same with me but i haven't seen it yet im gonna wait till after i see it in theaders and watch it till i get it on DVD when it comes out for it then i will delete it and end of that and i use bittorrent cuz its better then P2P porgrames like Kazza

If you think industry anti-piracy doesn't exert any authority, look into the Business Software Alliance, and their tactics.

If you thought your neighbor stole your watch, do you think you could go to the police based on an anonymous call and get a court order to kick down their door? Probably not. These industries have lobbied for years to buy themselves a weapon in the form of the US justice system, and they don't have to follow the same rules as other people.

Sorry, that's wrong. Why did Napster disappear? Napster never hosted a single copyrighted file. All the files were on people's computers. All Napster did was allow you to search for files on other people's computers and download them.

Napster ultimately lost because their servers, which held the master list of what was being shared, were centralized. The company could not claim it didn't know what was being shared. BitTorrent is different because it's both decentralized completely and there's no company behind it. Napster got nailed because it was knowingly contributing to copyright infringement.

These bittorrent sites provide links to pirated torrents. They are knowingly facilitating the infringement, which is almost as bad as the people sharing and downloading. It's the tracker sites that they're going after here Baker, and those sites are doing something wrong. They are directly facilitating software and music piracy. They're not at the moment attacking the specific technology.

Sorry For My Ignorance On American Enforcement Agencies But ...
What Do The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Have To Do
With Shutting Down An Internet Website?

I heard that at the moment, over 50% of the internet traffic is torrent. And, I use it as well, appaerently, I can download a moviie or tv serie without any problem. But, if I make the movie available to others, then I am in deep dooda. And, with torrents, you start to share as soon as you've downloaded a byte. Pitty, though, I liked Torrents (and Starwars III and National Treasure and Star Trek Enterprise).

I'll wait for the next best thing (Exeem?)
Regards,
TCM

I have to disagree, Zoomba. The law isn't designed to deal with this, and it is an abuse to do so. You use words like "facilitating", but in reality they never deal with these files. Only the names of people who have them.

If someone comes to me and says "I wanna buy some dope", and I say, "Joe down the street sells dope." Am I criminally facilitating? Not by any interpretation of the law. What if I put a sign in my yard saying "Joe sells dope!!"? Hell, the police would LOVE it if I did that.

That's all these sites do, point to people who host files. If we hold "facilitating" to that standard then it becomes a speech issue. If I tell you that a particular site has a file, I am neither hosting it or downloading it.

To make it illegal for me to tell you is very, very dubious. It isn't illegal to host a file with the name of a movie and an ip address in it, and basically that is all these sites do. Napster didn't have any business policing its users, and they aptly kept their noses out of what people had on their computers.

We need to step back and stop allowing corporations to decide what we can and can't say, and stick with the laws we have.

Intellectual Property law is a bit slipperier than regular law, and facilitating infringement (contributory and/or indirect infringement) is a recognized offense (it's what they hit Napster with) within the world of IP law.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=268
http://www.ladas.com/Patents/Biotechnology/USPharmPatentLaw/USPhar31.html

And most modern IP law hasn't been drafted by us or our representitives, it was drafted DIRECTLY by these industries and handed to legislators who then accept the good graces of lobbyists and vote it into law. Most of which had no knowledge of the Internet and its use.

I saw Larz Ulrich, in front of Congress, state openly that Napster hosted their songs on their servers. Not a single person asked for clarification, no one disputed it. The laws that were passed were just passed on such say-s0. All those finer points were glossed over with lies, and the legislators assumed they were addressing black-and-white piracy.

In reality, they weren't, and the laws you talk about are much more a threat to personal freedom than anything in the Patriot act. They allow COMMERCE to police us, and allow corporate America to decide what our freedom of speech or expression entails.

That's all these sites do, point to people who host files. If we hold "facilitating" to that standard then it becomes a speech issue. If I tell you that a particular site has a file, I am neither hosting it or downloading it.

Baker...it's called 'aiding and abetting', holding the bank's door open to let the robbers in is called aiding and abetting.

It's no stretch of the imagination or anyone's intelligence to see it as a criminal act.

How is downloading music or movies without paying different from recording them from TV or the radio?

It isn't 'technically' different, except the radio and TV have legal rights to 'distribute' the artwork via their media....those who use bittorrent do not, and never have had any permission, tacit, explicit, implied, intrinsic, or assumed.

 

Unfortunately few see this as a crime because it's not technically theft, and they assert that no harm is done.

So true.  Because it requires little more effort than pointing a finger at a keyboard it can't possibly be a crime.  If you heard the owner of the property screaming 'no, don't' you'd get the association with having sex without consent, too. [though even a dribbling moron would cotton onto the notion that that's called 'rape'].  Both are criminal acts obtaining 'something' without consent...

It isn't 'technically' different, except the radio and TV have legal rights to 'distribute' the artwork via their media

So why don't the artists give bittorent the rights? Because it doesn't have commercials?

So why don't the artists give bittorent the rights?

Well...they 'could' ... if people somewhere paid royalties....either the downloader or the bittorrent 'facilitator'...as long as someone did...

Point of the article is....this WILL NEVER happen in the case of the Star Wars movie....Lucas owns TOTAL rights and is hardly likely to allow distribution in ANY form or format before the original intended medium...aka Cinema Release...

We need to step back and stop allowing corporations to decide what we can and can't say, and stick with the laws we have.

Bakerstreet is right. If you take their argument a couple of steps further you step into the realms of Orwellian thought crime. There is no comparision to be made between Napster and Bit Torrent, yes they are both P2P but so what?

Bit Torrent may well have been designed in order to circumvent the laws and intervention but again so what. Thats just smart and clever thinking.

If the laws need to be changed in order to support their position then that is what they must do. But as it stands they have veto rights that in any other legal context would be ripped to shreds. They are getting away with exerting powers that they simply dont have. Its a disgrace.

I think they are abusing the law to shut down and punish sites that AREN'T HOSTING movies. The sites get shut down, and the people hosting the movies more often than not keep right on hosting them.

For a few years the justice system has just opened the doors to their vigilante bullshit, and it needs to stop

These industries have lobbied for years to buy themselves a weapon in the form of the US justice system, and they don't have to follow the same rules as other people.

I saw Larz Ulrich, in front of Congress, state openly that Napster hosted their songs on their servers. Not a single person asked for clarification, no one disputed it. The laws that were passed were just passed on such say-s0. All those finer points were glossed over with lies, and the legislators assumed they were addressing black-and-white piracy. In reality, they weren't, and the laws you talk about are much more a threat to personal freedom than anything in the Patriot act. They allow COMMERCE to police us, and allow corporate America to decide what our freedom of speech or expression en

We need to step back and stop allowing corporations to decide what we can and can't say, and stick with the laws we have.

i really had a difficult time deciding what not to cite here because you really nailed it. (anyone who saw only part of this at first will hopefully understand that ju wasnt similarly constrained and decided to keep me from quoting as much as i wanted)

i'm not sure the patriot act is any better or worse. alone or together they're equally threatening. both seem to me obvious products of the political climate created by the current administration (i doubt you'll agree).

one more proof that flawed policies aren't improved solely by virtue of privatization.