TALK STORY

MPAA Chafes at Bit(Torrent) - IMDB

POSTED BY: QUICKSAND
UPDATED: Thursday, September 30, 2004 16:44
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3470
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:30 AM

QUICKSAND


Taken from the IMDB, 28 September 2004:

-------

A new technology called BitTorrent, which can download a pirated feature film in DVD quality in less time than it takes to watch, is posing a new threat to movie studios. According to Mercury News, the technology, which requires several "owners" of a particular film to "share" individual parts of it with others, is particularly tough for the studios to battle since the sharing network shuts down after the film is downloaded. The BitTorrent software was created by Bram Cohen of Seattle, who receives no money from sales of pirated films but does welcome "donations" from visitors to his website. However, that may not insulate him from a lawsuit by the MPAA. John G. Malcolm, director of worldwide anti-piracy for the Motion Picture Association of America, told Mercury News: "BitTorrent and others who are complicit in copyright theft should take little comfort from their temporary celebrity status."


___\_o_/___
--------------- (Qs)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:41 AM

PHYSCHICK


Well, I think you can probably all guess where I stand on BitTorrent!

It makes me so mad to see the MPAA going after this guy. I wonder when they'll realize that no matter how many file-sharing apps they hobble, more are always going to pop up. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak, and they're not going to get it back in.

BitTorrent is used for more than just media... my husband uses it to download Linux distributions at a higher rate than he would be able to by just downloading it off of one site. Yes, we also download media, but it's usually only to tide us over until DVDs come out, or see things we'd never be able to buy (ComicCon footage, anyone?).

I guess my libertarian side is coming out; I feel like I'm using the technology responsibly (to exchange free material, to download things I cannot yet (but will later) buy, to spread the Browncoat love), and I get mad when someone wants to take it away because others are unethical.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 7:38 PM

QUICKSAND


I'm more amused that the article referred to this program as "new."

I'm not the most on-the-ball dude when it comes to all things computer (It took me a year to figure out what "r0XX0rz" meant), but even *I* had heard of BitTorrent-- through here-- a month ago. I assume you guys in-the-know had known about it for much longer. This is how long it takes for "them" (read: "The Man") to find out about this stuff.

And then some lawyer says, "This is costing you money," and the MPAA says, "Kill it." (very... Niska of them).

Rather like Metallica and Napster. Napster was not, in fact, hurting Metallica, but Lars Ulrich being a dumbass may have hurt them quite a bit.

You can't OWN a sound... just like you can't convince everyone they NEED a computer, and then charge them $500 for the next necessary program.

I'd point out, though, that a story is different. I bought my Firefly DVD's, wouldn't have it any other way. And the only movies I ever download are ones that are already out on video. Private presentations are totally different from something ALREADY available to the public... like a song, an OS, or pr0n.

Keep on rockin' in the free world.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 6:41 AM

LASHER99


This always drives me nuts. I mean consider the following:

1. The Internet - You know there is this Internet thing that a lot of people use. Hey I can go to a web page and find a clip of a movie that I own and have not consented to be released. Let's go sue the creators of the Internet for copyright infringement...

2. The Telephone - Hey I just realized something... I have heard that people have been defrauded by people that have called and tricked them. Let's sue the makers of the telephone for letting this happen...

3. The automobile - Hey, did you know that cars can be used as escape vehicles during bank robberies. Hell, they are even used to transport kidnapping victims. Let's sue the makers of automobiles for not installing a device to prevent this illegal use...

Utter rubbish!!!

The car, phone, Internet and bittorrent are TOOLS!!! These tools have valid uses. Unscrupulous people do illegal things with valid tools to give them bad names. Bittorrent is an application that was designed to allow the distribution of large files when the distributor doesn't (or can't afford) the bandwidth to do so. If you want to download a file, you must be prepared to share some of your bandwidth with others that want the same file. Bittorrent is used to distribute linux ISOs, game demos, etc... Bittorrent is used to also distribute movies, comics, games, applications, books, and music.

The **AA would have you believe that this tools is one of primarily copyright infringement. Personally, I think it is a bloody brilliant piece of engineering and the inventor should be applauded for his innovation, not sued. If you think they are going after the creator because they can't identify the true copyright infringers, you are sorely mistaken. When you use bittorrent, you are an uploader when you download a file. There is no way to turn this off. Each packet that gets sent from your computer is stamped with your IP address. With a competent network administrator, the copyright holder of the work can easily start a torrent and record the IPs of everybody they pull a packet from to recreate the file. The next step would be to sue the infringers. The problem is that so many people are using bittorrent in this way and lawsuits are costly to initiate, you cannot go after everybody. Unlike kazaa, you cannot go after the biggest infringer since you cannot know how many/much the individual is sharing. Everybody is committing the same level of infringement (unless you're using more bandwidth - hence more packets sent). With the recent court decisions against the RIAA, is it any wonder they are going after the easiest target? Bloody ridiculous.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 7:07 AM

AERRIN


Over the past several days I've been reading on technological progress for a history course. So when I came upon this quote after having just read this article, I felt compelled to share:

Quote:

If Cardwell's Law can be extrapolated into the future, no single society should expect to be on the cutting edge of technology forever. Contrary perhaps to what economic logic suggests, most societies have not been particularly amenable to the application of new ideas to production. As Schumpeter stressed, the enemies of technological progress were not the lack of useful new ideas, but social forces that for one reason or another tried to preserve the status quo. These forces represented different interests can came in a variety of forms: environmental lobbies, labor unions, clayfooted giant corporations, professional associations, reactionary or incompetent bureaucracies may all, in one way or another, try to block the kind of relentless and aggressive thrusts forward that occurred in the nineteenth and twentieth century.


- Joel Mokyr, The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativty and Economic Progress

He wrote it in 1990. I wonder what he'd have to say about the last decade or so if he were revising today.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:52 PM

QUICKSAND


This is an interesting point, and I like that it's apolitical. I agree with it, but it also comes down to how one defines "progress."

Now, I'm all for the internet, and any kind of transportation that takes me from here-to-there in less time, and all that. I'm for PROGRESS.

However, I don't think that bulldozing the rain forest for farmland, or burning MORE fossil fuels just to make our cars go faster when we could be using other energy sources... constitutes progress. I think these things are a step backward, or in the case of fossil fuels, standing still, I guess.

Others (like, say, Republicans who want to drill for oil in Alaska) might consider the above much progress indeed. I'd argue that these people are, of course, morons, but then who defines 'moron?'

Regardless, the distribution of information IS progress, I hope we can all agree. It breaks down cultural barriers, it makes the shut-in more informed, it helps move us forward as a species. 'Star Trek' envisioned a moneyless society of peace and exploration, and while it's cheesy on a TV show, it'd be a damn fine step up for our actual lives. And we can't get there if somewhere a room full of old billionaires are telling me that I'm stealing from them when I want to listen to a 4-minute song, that only appears on an album of 12 other songs that suck.

Anyway, Cardwell has a point, and Capitalism can help it along, but only so far. Thanks for the quote.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 7:42 PM

AERRIN


Quote:

This is an interesting point, and I like that it's apolitical. I agree with it, but it also comes down to how one defines "progress."


All too true. For the record, in case you're interested at all, Mokyr is defining progress in this instance as something which leads to economic expansion once all the costs are tallied. In which the profit is greater than the cost - which includes not only the cost of invention, labor, and production, but also costs such as environmental loss.

If you're interested at all, it's really quite an interesting read, (The Lever of Riches, Joel Mokyr, 1990) and well written to top it off. In that vein, another interesting quote, just because it made me chuckle, and history books don't often do that.

Quote:

"Of course, if technological change eventually leads to the physical destruction of our planet, survivors may no longer wish to use the word progress in their descriptions of technological history."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 30, 2004 4:44 PM

QUICKSAND


Well, the Romans were doing pretty well with all the technological and economic progress, until they collapsed. Conversely, the Greeks were doing pretty well with ideological, intellectual progress, until the Romans came in and killed them.

Again, now one must define 'cost' (which you do), but different people define this word different ways. I'm watching the Presidential debates right now (which is a whole 'nother thread), and Bush is certain that the costs are worth the end result. And for American Business, they might be, but what about the cost of the Arab World hating us for walkin' in there?

Just as an example. Didn't mean to change the subject, but I like to know that there's this smart stuff out there. I shall attempt to track it down, and then read it... with gusto.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Canada Getting It's 1st Total Solar Eclipse In 40 Years
Wed, March 6, 2024 19:49 - 1 posts
What Song Are You Listening To, California Dreamin'
Thu, February 29, 2024 07:48 - 148 posts
S.I. go Bye Bye?
Tue, January 23, 2024 14:29 - 13 posts
EMMYS ratings tank
Sun, January 21, 2024 02:21 - 9 posts
What happened to music?
Thu, January 18, 2024 21:13 - 61 posts
ESPN stole Emmys for 13 years
Tue, January 16, 2024 21:01 - 4 posts
Your essential top ten music albums.
Fri, January 12, 2024 12:45 - 31 posts
Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Status
Tue, September 12, 2023 09:30 - 128 posts
SpaceX
Wed, August 23, 2023 13:07 - 7 posts
Special Branch XIII: Soulless
Mon, August 21, 2023 16:59 - 30 posts
Hollywood star whackers, Dave Chapelle: 'I was paid $50-million by for gay sex'
Sat, August 19, 2023 05:49 - 19 posts
Marvel comics continues the long march to destroying an industry. ( Get work, go broke )
Thu, August 10, 2023 13:36 - 5 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL