BitTorrent: Under Attack but Needed for Innovation
Written by Ernesto on August 19, 2009Mininova, isoHunt, The Pirate Bay and other P2P sites are fighting out legal battles with the entertainment industry. Courts zealously document their contribution to copyright infringement. But copyright holders and courts ignore P2P’s vital role in fostering innovation. Professor of Law Michael Carrier explains why this has to change.
Guest post by Michael Carrier, Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School in Camden.
BitTorrent: Attacked by Copyright Holders, Crushed by Courts, but Needed for Innovation.
The Pirate Bay and other P2P sites continually find themselves on the defensive. Copyright holders repeatedly threaten and sue them. Courts zealously document their contribution to copyright infringement. But copyright holders and courts ignore P2P’s vital role in fostering innovation. I would like to change that.
In my book, Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law, I examine (1) why copyright holders continually seek to quash new technologies, (2) why courts fail to appreciate P2P, and (3) why we should lament these developments.
First, I trace the long history of copyright holders reacting with alarm to new technologies that threaten their business models. John Philip Sousa bemoaned the introduction of the player piano, which would lead to “a marked deterioration in American music.” Jack Valenti warned that the market for copyrighted movies would be “decimated, shrunken [and] collapsed” by the VCR. And the recording industry, lamenting a decline in CD sales, has sued numerous P2P services.
In fearing the potential of the new business models, copyright holders offer a classic example of market leaders that fail to appreciate disruptive innovation. A decade ago, the recording industry responded to Napster, which was striving to be “the online distribution channel for the record labels,” not by striking a deal that would have seamlessly transported the industry into the digital era, but by suing it. While the record labels may have won the battle in shutting down Napster, they began to lose the war, as former users migrated to other P2P networks.
Nor are copyright holders the only ones that fail to appreciate the new technologies. Courts also do. Why? Because of an innovation asymmetry. Courts downplay the future benefits of new technologies and overemphasize copyright owners’ present losses. Copyright owners offer evidence of losses from infringement on a silver platter.
In contrast, non-infringing uses are less tangible. It is difficult to put a dollar figure on the benefits of enhanced communication and interaction. And when a new technology is introduced, no one knows all of the beneficial uses to which it will eventually be put. I offer numerous examples of this (including, just to pick two, the telephone, which Alexander Graham Bell thought would be used to broadcast the daily news, and the phonograph, which Thomas Edison thought would “record the wishes of old men on their death beds”). This asymmetry, combined with costly litigation (which ensnares small technology makers in a web of complex tests and unaffordable lawsuits) explains why courts do not sufficiently appreciate P2P.
This lack of appreciation threatens innovation. As this site’s readers are well aware, BitTorrent and other P2P protocols offer revolutionary forms of interaction and distribution. By breaking up large files into many small pieces, BitTorrent speeds up transfer, allowing the distribution of numerous works, such as home movies, independent films, TV shows, video games, educational videos, computer software, and high-resolution images. Just a few of many examples discussed on this site that have utilized BitTorrent include (1) computer manufacturer Asus, which offers fast, cheap software updates, (2) the airing of a high-definition movie in Norway, and (3) FrostWire’s offering of a service that promotes music of new artists.
Courts’ failure to appreciate P2P and BitTorrent threatens to stifle the development of new business models that attempt to free participants from the shackles of traditional distribution methods. Independent artists would find it much more difficult to break away from mainstream record labels if they lacked an inexpensive method of rapidly and widely distributing their work. Independent filmmakers would no longer be able to reach the masses, instead having to rely on boutique movie theaters or direct DVD mailings.
And of course, we can only see the tip of the P2P innovation iceberg. To pick two of countless examples, in my book I explore potential P2P benefits in providing alternatives to the Google search engine and cloud computing.
In short, the trend—as typified by developments such as the Pirate Bay decision, Malaysia’s order to shut down the tracker LeechersLair, exorbitant statutory damage awards, and various “three strikes” legislative proposals—is to clamp down ever harder on any technology that could contribute in any way to copyright infringement. But in squeezing technologies in this infringement vise, courts and copyright holders threaten to suffocate P2P innovation.
Michael’s book ‘Innovation for the 21st Century: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law’ is available on Amazon.
Previously: How The Pirate Bay Will Be Legalized
Next: Torrented Pirate Bay Copy Comes To Life
67 Responses
so, where’s the link to the ebook .torrent?
@1 won’t take long before someone posts it I guess…
Why don’t you post the link to the downloadable version of your book Michael? So we can all harness the power together.
Torrent Freak looks nicer without Amazon ads.
“Law at Rutgers Law School in Camden”
You know, there are also other countries than USA and UK in our little planet called Earth. So please, why don’t you give the info and everyone, who lives outside, will know.
With all do respect, but you cannot expect from people to know. To be even honest, I am positive most of US/UK citizens wouldn’t even know half of the European capitals… now not to mention the rest of the world, which again is pretty much nonexistent for them.
Some larger book stores cant deliver atm (talking about BOL.com and Selexyz.nl)… Will wait a while before ordering the book.
Supercomputer clusters are P2P, farm renderers are P2P, normal webservers are P2P they all are distributed systems DrQueue is a great example of distributed clusters management system that is widely used. P2P is just a catchy name for a technology that hit the streets and become popular and bittorrent is just one of many frontends but try and explain that to layman people and confusion ensues.
http://www.drqueue.org/cwebsite/index.php
Don’t believe me? go to the top 500 supercomputers list and see what they use for interconnections(hint: you will be using the same in 10 years)
“Why don’t you post the link” TF
torrentfreak talks the walk, but does not walk the walk.
I am guilty of the same, so no diss to TF.
What about you? Have you truly taken the risk or are you only criticising it?
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=filetype%3Apdf+Innovation+for+the+21st+Century%3A+Harnessing+the+Power+of+Intellectual+Property+and+Antitrust+Law&aq=f&aqi=&fp=e7e374c314de6a77
It’s “talks the talk, but does not walk the walk”.
kkthx
“Copyright owners offer evidence of losses from infringement on a silver platter”: really? Since when? When have they been able to show evidence of losses from infringement on P2P? Some independent studies show that P2P has nothing to do with their losses.
i heard that biratebay team was developing new protocol (was at securep2p.org), any news about it?
Somebody get this dude as an expert witness on some court cases… QUICK.
Its fairly simple to answer most of the questions this guy raises and there is really only two answers for this. 1) Money. 2) Ignorance. The courts and justice system doesn’t want to hear about how good p2p programs are, simply because you can use them for illegal activities and most (not all) judges are old people and are not interested in learning new technologies when they ones they are using now work just fine. Trying to force this issue with the way current judges see things will never ever work. What people need to do is change the minds of the younger generation, as its much more easier to persuade or convince people that are using these programs daily, compaired to someone who has only been shown the dark side of things. Its the younger politicians and lawyers and students that need to be shown the way forward because soon they will be the ones sitting in court or defending/prosecuting and will understand the way things work much better. These so called pirate parties that are starting to appear need to stop complaining about how its not fair to break the law and how all movies should be free, but try to explain why using a service like bittorrent or other p2p programs would benefit all of us and promote the legal uses rather than the illegal uses. From there the way forward would be much easier.
That is a very nice read and bang on. I’m heavily into open source and many of those project wouldn’t be possible any other way. Server costs being what they are it makes sense to harness p2p. Broader user group using and fixing your code, adapting it. Outlawing things one doesn’t understand just shows a lack of education. Find ways to utilize the technology not kill it.
“Courts downplay the future benefits of new technologies and overemphasize copyright owners’ present losses.”
Your extract is interesting, but flawed. the courts only interpret the law, the judgements handed down may very well contribute to the downplaying of technology, however, IMO it is the legislators that create such laws that are the most responsible party.
ok, all this bulshit should be avoided.
Torrent sites will NEVAR stop. There will be p2p forever, there is nothing law can do.
Also, plz note that if there arent torrents, there sure will be other p2p way. Emule and Ares also work.
P2P WINS
LAW FAILS
We’ve had a copy of the book (a physical one) for a while. Would anyone be interested in the review of it?
@ 6 All the things you listed are server to client. The main point of bit torrent is the main data flow is client to client! Think you might want to check up on your terminology ;)
@17 Aug 20, 2009 at 02:36 by TheCareBay:
Yes you are right. Technically.
P2P systems are both server and client(serve and consume data)
Server-client is the old proven way when the server only supplies data and the client only receive data.
Sorry my bad, what I was trying to do and failed to do so was to show that P2P is a form of distributed system and I lumped all distributed system that I know off into a single thing that I was calling P2P but you are right there is a technical distinction between distributed systems that are P2P and distributed systems that are client-server.
It’s hardly surprising that once a new tech like bittorrent comes along that allows people’s selfish side to do what it’s always wanted (not pay a cent for anything) that people praise it like it’s the second comming.
People repackage it to death even though, in reality, it’s quite simple. Bitttorrent allows people to avoid paying for things, so people find all sorts of creative ways to justify and defend against it.
1) There is no possible way that piracy fosters creativity or a healthy econamy. Everyone says that they try it before they buy it, but that’s complete bullshit and I think they know it. If someone doesn’t profit from their hardwork and innovation, what motivation do they have to put more hardwork and innovation into something else.
2) It’s not “information” or public domain. It’s someone’s work that was illegally made available for the selfish masses.
3) Saying that piracy is the new face of the 21st century and therefore should be embraced is just like saying that we should encourage hit and runs when cars were invented. The easiest thing isn’t always the right thing to do. In fact, what takes courage is to actually earn money and pay for the things you use. Yes, movies can be digitalized and distributed, but try to think of where those movies came from.
4) The comparison is flawed. VCRs or player piano’s don’t allow people to repackage other people’s work and hand them out to millions of people without so much as a single cent given to the creator.
5) Piracy is not a new business model. It is an illegal movement with immense effects. Why do people always talk about the entertainment industry having to change? Why should it be them? They are the ones who are being stolen from. Why do people always flip things around and say that “teh BigG evil corporashenz is stealin from meh”? Do you claim that a grocery story is stealing from you when they expect you to pay for your groceries?
What possible good could changing their business do? If their stuff is being offered up for free on bittorrent, how much more motivation could they provide than something being free?
6) Lack of appreciation? Why in god’s name would they appreciate something that causes them to loose millions of dollars?
7) Offer little proof of infringing losses? Does TF have comprehensive court transcripts? How about the infringement part alone? Copyright infringement is illegal as is violation of intellectual property laws.
8) I doubt people are interested in the technical innovation of bittorrent when it has caused them trememdous losses. Would you? That’s kind of like if you were to get rear ended and then go “hey! the car that hit me has power steering!”
9) I fail to see how people not profiting from their hard work helps them in any way. This is asinine.
Somehow I got a feeling they will come out on top! They always do!
RT
http://www.web-tools.us.tc
As much as I support this kind of writing, $57 for a 420 page hardcover is rather ridiculous. I’ll wait for ebook or a (much) cheaper hardcover.
Er, I mean cheaper softcover.
What an irony. This person himself is a copyright holder. He’s advocating something that puts himself at risk.. I hope he remembers what he’s been preaching when no give him a cent for his work.
Tl;DR
@15: You are quite correct, fine sir. Digital distribution will not go away unless the entire Internet is shut down for good. Should such an objective be reached, then private networks will spring up, and the distribution continues, albeit in a in lower publically-accessible quantities. However it would have the advantage of being as untraceable as offline-sharing.
#16
I would. :)
I’m still waiting for that .torrent. The book is way too expensive for me to buy, though I would if it was cheaper.
57 bucks for this book is a little steep do we not thinks. How much do you gain from each sale Prof Carrier? Or do all the proceeds go to OU/P?
On a sidenote, @4 Jew.
Wrong. I’m English, and, I know that if I don’t know a Capital city of an fellow European Country, theres a website’s office located in Copenhagen that can tell me if I need to know. Or even an Atlas will do the trick if I’m feeling whirllldy…
Do you memorize every Capital city of every country around the world? I suspect not.
Please stop hating on popular Country’s because you’ve only heard/met the minority and not the people that usually go quiet around you.
very relevant article, thank you
http://www.h33t.com who wishes more Law Professor’s take the stand for p2p
Very very nice article. Can’t wait to read it !
@20, .neo.styles|nvDX.
> Copyright infringement is illegal as is violation of intellectual property laws.
If laws no longer serve the people, perhaps the laws need to change. If people are unwilling to pay, the author of content needs to ask himself why, instead of blaming piracy for everything. Instead, make production of content cheaper, make DVD distribution cheaper, etc.
I’d happily buy Starcraft and Diablo I if they didn’t cost 119 Croatian kunas for a game that came out in 1998, when I purchased Galactic Civilizations for 47kn, and Deus Ex for 69kn a few years ago. Sacred Gold costs 99kn, and offers more content and deeper storyline than Diablo I.
If I buy a movie, I buy it for maximum 39kn. Some good movies are available for 10kn. Why insist on repackaging old 70s Star Wars movies continuously instead of focusing to distribute it far and wide, and to create new content?
neo, you’re trying to justify a monopoly that was granted by the people that no longer consider that monopoly valid. Taking the monopoly away may result in less content produced … but would also result in people realizing not paying means less content. Economics 101. Copyright is overregulated, and governments’ fighting with their own people and corporations’ fighting with their own (potential?) customers is either a losing battle or an introduction to dictatorship regimes.
You can’t control people without introducing censorship and dictatorship. So either sharing, democracy, and quality-content-only win, or censorship, dictatorship, strict control and mass production of crap win.
@neo.styles
I don’t have the patience to write a long response to you right now, but I do know how to completely smash one of your major arguments:
I can destroy this in two words and three letters.
Creative Commons. GPL.
Look at those and then say again that without guaranteed profit, there is no incentive to create. I don’t think you can, but feel free to try.
Maybe after this you’ll learn that money is not sacred and that- surprise surprise- people CAN and DO create things because they LOVE what they’re creating, not because they want to make MONEY from it.
Jerk.
@20: Neostyles:
For the sheer enjoyment. You are working on the assumption that someone writes a song or makes a film to profit from it, and ONLY that. If they DO do it only to make money, there are much more efficient ways that guarantee a steady wage packet, don’t you think?
You can’t make that comparison. Hit and run drivers injure and kill people. Piracy does not. Also, you are assuming again. You are assuming that I pay for nothing (”In fact, what takes courage is to actually earn money and pay for the things you use.”). In fact, I always pay for video games, indie music and books and I visit the cinema on occasion. I use mostly open-source software on all of my machines. The only thing that I actually pirate is music, because I hate the RIAA, BPI, etc. in ther current form with a vengeance.
I think you’ll find that they can, although maybe not on the scale of millions.
Maybe piracy isn’t, but perhaps they should listen to us, and they might get somewhere. And yes, the entertainment industry SHOULD change for us. Every other industry listens to their customers and alters their business strategy to help please their customers (and ultimately, generate more profit for them), why not the entertainment industry? The way I see it, they are telling their customers that it’s their way or no way.
And frankly, when the industry sues some poor student for thousands, even millions, then yes “teh BigG evil corporashenz is stealin from meh” as you put it.
Although this may surprise you, most of us are perfectly willing to pay. It’s just that their current business model DOES NOT WORK and this has been proven over and over again. Hanging onto this business model like a drowning man clawing at a lifebelt is futile. If I could have an “all-you-can-eat” music download service with high quality tracks, fast speeds and no DRM for about £10 per month, that would be enough to stop me pirating music and I’m sure that many people here would agree with me. Of course, you will still get people pirating music, but there’s f**k all that you can do about that.
The industry could have avoided all this by taking advantage of BitTorrent while it was in it’s infancy. Instead, they threw one large, messy and expensive tantrum because they couldn’t handle the fact that the community can do a better job than them of distributing music. That is what is costing the industry millions of dollars, the fact that they are unwilling to innovate and sue anyone who tries, not piracy.
Do YOU have comprehensive court transcripts? Do YOU know exactly how much the industry “loses” to piracy? Kid yourself as much as you want, intellectual property doesn’t exist.
Once again, you are making analogies that make no sense. If you are hit by a car, you might have your legs broke, or worse. As far as I know, piracy has never caused anyone broken limbs. And as I said earlier, this could have all been avoided if the industry didn’t run a mile when BitTorrent saw the light of day.
I’m an artist. I don’t profit from my hard work. Yet I’m still making music. Why? Because I enjoy doing it, not because I want to make millions. THAT is the way that it helps me.
@ .neo.styles
‘Everyone says that they try it before they buy it, but that’s complete bullshit and I think they know it.’
Yes, of course, independent research must be BS.
‘If someone doesn’t profit from their hardwork and innovation, what motivation do they have to put more hardwork and innovation into something else.’
Getting paid is just compromising with the reality of supporting yourself doing what you enjoy doing the most, full time. You don’t stop writing, composing, inventing, what ever, just because you don’t make a profit, or get paid at all, you just work with something else to support yourself financially so you can keep doing what you most enjoy doing. You don’t even stop when you’ve made so much profit you could support yourself and your family for generations. This is because money doesn’t have anything to do with the creative process. This is also why writers, if they lack even pen and paper, will use what ever, by what ever means necessary, to get the shit out of the head.
It’s the industries, no matter which, that like to pay, preferably, nothing. Consumers, it has been proven, pays pretty much for any and everything the industries have told them they need, as long as it is available. And when the consumers feel they need something, they’ll get it, one way or another.
For someone who writes lenghty posts as you do, your not of the creative mind set that much is abundantly clear. So by your logic you write your logical fallacy filled propaganda for profit.
I use onswarm to distribute large files around my network, as it has the benefit of being fast, resumable and does great error checking
SMB just doesn’t cut it anymore :)
alot of places use bit torrent now to help speed up the large files , like the mmorpg fiesta and perfect world international(pwi), pwi is a 4 gb download so why would someone want to do http download when they use bt.
So you’re saying recording VCR’s is permissible…? ¬_¬
I bet you wouldn’t say that if you were a copyright holder, it was 1985, and the Internet wasn’t around. You’d be saying, “VCR’s will kill the video industry because they’ll do exactly what you said they wouldn’t in your post!”
And yet, you seem to be okay with VCR piracy now, because you’ve got bigger fish to fry, like the Internet. And yet, if it were 1985, VCR’s would be just one step up from home taping, and that would be just one step up from copywriting.
And please, for God’s sake, don’t say “but the Internet is really going to hurt the music industry big time! All the previous times were just our misjudgments!” What’s to keep us from saying that this time isn’t also a misjudgment?
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! The reason is mind-meltingly obvious!!! The New World Order wants to create an internet 2, a controlled, restricted internet whereby they can control the flow of information and reduce or crush awareness of and resistance against the New World Order. They even have the nerve to claim terrorists are using movie piracy and kiddy porn to fund themselves!!!! What a load of shit!!!!!
Isohunt may already be completely compromised as the forums are now totally biased and I was kicked off the forums for stating the science that disproves Global Warming, It ooks like the NWO may have influenc etheir already, either that or the moderator was a complete tool.
Either way the NWO’s goals regarding the net are so blatant it’s like being hit over the head by a hammer.
I understand where .neo.styles is coming from, even if he does come off a little badly. While it’s true that people should create things because they enjoy the creative process (I’m an artist, I get that) it’s also true that getting your work stolen sucks. I’m an artist, but also a commercial designer, and if I spend my time on something for a commercial purpose, I want to get paid for it, if it has value.
The point that I think others are trying to make, and that .neo.styles misses is that you can’t avoid the reality of the situation, and kicking and screaming isn’t going to help. Those who don’t roll with the new technology and use it as a springboard will get screwed. Imagine going to software companies 10 years ago, and telling them they should sell their new product for $1.99USD. They’d tell you to go screw. However, because of the ubiquity of iTunes store and the huge payback from the “long tail” effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail), companies are getting quite rich doing just that.
By hanging on to outdated distribution methods and screaming “it’s not fair!!”, you end up left behind. And, to be perfectly honest, as an American who lives on the left side of the political spectrum, I have NO sympathy hearing the same rich idiots who got the global economy into a financial meltdown by pushing deregulation of the financial world cry foul at the deregulation of the information world. Sorry, Charlie, evolve or die.
‘it’s also true that getting your work stolen sucks.’
Your Work is not being stolen; it’s being replicated.
If you don’t want your work to be replicated – why do you do it in the first place?
@41 if you replicate something for ten people then thats 10 people who no longer need to buy it if 100 people or 1000 or even a million people do it then why buy anything, so now you have thousands of people copying yur work and not paying a cent for it, there is no fairness there. Again to the people that say they would buy stuff yet your all going to boycott tpb when it becomes a legal paysite.. Make your mind up. piracy does hurt economies that much is obvious people who say otherwise are morons without a clue. Just because something is digital doesn’t mean that you have a god given right to take it. If the majority of artists actors writers and so on wanted there stuff to be free then it would be free plain and simple. You all sit here and say me downloading one movie doesn’t hurt anyone. You might be right if it was only one but when you have millions and millions of people world wide all downloading the same movie then it does start to hurt. the fact is anyone who commits a crime regardless of how severe it is all deny doing it. I don’t deny i commit crimes by downloading I know that i should really go out and buy my games movies music and so on but i dont because i can download my 360 games quicker than it is going to take me to get to the store it takes me about 1 minute to download a complete album it takes them longer to make the music than it does for me to take it for free, is there any fairness in what i do? No there isn’t and not just that what is the difference between walking into a music store and stealing a cd off of the shelf or downloading one? there isn’t in both ways i would have got an album to which i have not paid or what about a movie i could go to the store right now and buy a movie or i could download that same movie for free again i dont i download it. At the end of the day if you take something that should be paid for your a thief. Stop trying to justify yourselves just because its digital.
@39: Dude, you dropped your tin foil hat.
I think any country (I’m in the US) that imposes these types of laws – if legally viable shoulde have federal class-action lawsuits brought against the government that suppresses any given innovative technology.
All over Europe right now governments are attempting to push new legislation with the ‘3 stikes’ stuff and forcing ISPs to block a website here and there under the threat of excessive fines for non-compliance.
While at the same time – they are shunning Microsoft and Google for unfair competition penalties and trials.
WTF?
Is nobody paying attention to anyone else within the same government these days?
Here in the US a section of our government is going after several ISP for price-fixing (stifling competition and unfair practices) while at the same time allowing for several download infringers to be slapped with million dollar lawsuits.
»»@40 : If taking legal action against thieves is “kicking and screaming” then so would every other court case and law against other crimes, right? The enertainment industry has achieved much more than that. The Pirate Bay, one of the biggest hubs of theft, was shut down. Many smaller torrent sites have voluntarily shut down because of pressure.
Also, what do you suggest the entertainment industry does, just looks the other way while millions of people steal their things? What if everyone thought like you.. Do you also think that the legal system in general should accept the “reality of the situation” and stop caring when people commit other crimes like speeding and drunk driving? If we ignore these things, it sends a message that they are okay. You clearly missed the purposes of laws.
Well, let’s see. You’re avoiding payment while gaining unrestricted access to some material. It has every characteristic of physical theft. Depletion of a physical supply is not a requisite since, as pirates love to remind us, we live in the 21st century, where things can be copied and distrobuted without limits.
@32
Right, just because laws don’t let people run around and do whatever their heart desires, we should change them? Should we also legalize drunk driving because getting stopped by a cop is inconvenient for the drunk person?
Im sorry, but it’s not your right to determine how much other people should profit from THEIR work. I guess it never occurred to you that their are production costs and those need to be compensated for to result in profit? If you think that millions of people will just stop pirating things if the price tag is dropped down a notch, you are not being honest with yourself. No matter how much incentive people have to buy something, being free will always provide more incentive. Piracy will always be easier, but that doesn’t make it ok.
Paying for things is a basic moral imperative.
That’s only $23 and starcraft was one of the biggest games of all time. If this isn’t greed, then what is?
Oh gee. Maybe because people like you who think they are entitled to everything will only steal it without paying a cent?
Again, you have no right to tell somone how successful somone should or should not be. People who produce better things should be more successful. In every market, there will always be people who are more successful than others, but that doesn’t make it a monopoly. Lionsgate films has been very successful, but that hasn’t removed any sort of competition as there are still many other studios.
Just look at how pirates view themselves.. Like they are some sort of valiant rebels, saving the world from “teH evill BiG korporashhenz”.
You can’t control people without introducing censorship and dictatorship. So either sharing, democracy, and quality-content-only win, or censorship, dictatorship, strict control and mass production of crap win.
By your logic, we are also controlling people who we prohibit them from driving drunk or robbing stores. Freedom doesn’t include anything that harms other people.
I guess it never occured to you that most things that are pirated aren’t under the creative commons license. The whole point of copy right is that people who create something (not you) have the exclusive right to determine how their own work is distrobuted. Obviously, they want payment for their own work (most of them atleast) which is what drives freetards to steal it.
#34
Uhm, well that doesn’t mean that they don’t want profit from it either. :/
Obviously, artists love what they do, but that’s not enough. “Sheer enjoyment” won’t be enough to support them and allow them to continue pursuing their line of work.
Like many pirates, you’re working under the assumption that just because something is digital means, that it is harmless and has no tangible effects. Piracy does cause harm, in the form of enormous financial losses. But you probabaly wouldn’t know this. Why do you think that the entertainment industry is waging a gigantic legal battle against piracy? Just for fun?
The social dynamic of internet piracy and VHSs is completetely differnt. Look at aXXo. People think of those movies of his, even though he didn’t put one cent into them and just sits at his computer and gives them away.
Anyhow, that scale matters. A single person versus millions of people makes a BIG difference, einstein.
Oh christ, here we go again with the business models. So tell me what business model would you prefer? One where the creators don’t profit? Well im sorry, but that’s a very critical part of any creative endeavor. Wher is the roll eyes smiley when you need it?
If I had a dime for every time a pirate brought up business models, I would probably be living in beverly hills by now.
Ironically, pirates seem to be hanging onto the idea that they don’t have to pay for anything like a “drowning man clawling at a lifeboat.” It’s utterly false that you are portraying the entertainment industry as desperate when just last week, the pirate bay, a bunch of self satisfied thieves were actually prepared to sue their own country to uphold their right to be thieves. lol
Actually, the effects piracy are readilly available through a simple search on google. Wow.
Intellectual piracy doesn’t exist? Uhm.. you wish, buddy. >_> Whether you like it or not, it’s a law.
Once again, you demonstrate that you have no understanding for what an analogy is. Literal similarity is not part of the package. It’s metaphorical.
My point was that there is no way that the entertainment industry would or should give a shit about the shiny technical features of bittorrent when it is doing harm to them.
I guess it never occured to you that many artists don’t have extra sources of income. Some are entirely dependent on their music. They want to make music, but their so called fans are making it hard to for them to continue.
Do you know what selfish is?
»»@35
If people actually were buying thing, I don’t think the entertainment industry would be reporting such huge profits. It’s called logic. You should try it sometime.
Sure, because you have the right to tell other people how they should be making money off of their hard work? That’s just like saying gang violence, drug smuggling, and robbery are the realities of running a society and they should just be ignored. Things like market competition are risks for a business, but they are fair. Piracy is not. Can you possibly get any more selfish than that? I can’t think of how you could.
Please use some facts/research next time. Learn what copyright and the Berne convention are.
You come in here proclaiming your god given right to take anything, but you don’t know nothing about the laws.
Uh, so that makes it okay?
VCR recording makes people do work which is just what torrent piracy saves people from doing, and why it’s so popular. With VCRs you aren’t in control over how your media is delivererd. You have ads and if you don’t want those ads in your recording, you have to do work (stop and resuming the recording.)
History speaks for itself. Even with VCRs, piracy wasn’t nearly as popular in the 80s until internet piracy appeared and took off in the 90s.
The pirate bay alone has 15 million users. That’s way more than any other trend. This time, it’s been proven. It’s not just unfounded speculation.
if you cant afford to buy the cd/dvd then you dont buy it. simple.
the entertainment cartels are still going to lose “millions and millions” either way. even does this justify copying/replicating entertainment media via bittorrent? no probibly not. but do poor people
now have ”less rights” to access entertainment because wellfare checks only go so far each month.
we humans need entertainment distractions…its all some of us have to help fascilitate our fantasy escapism from a world rapidly evolving into a greed and selffish world.
and the big four are still billions ahead in recources and money unlike 99% of the population earth that is their supposed commercial targe€t. the big four have to take into account that world economies are
Whaaaaat? 60 bucks??? Lessigs book cost 6 time less, not to mention it’s available for free download.
@42
please learn to use paragraphs and punctuation. Then I might consider taking you seriously. (probably not, though.)
@42
Stop right there- you’re assuming. Plenty of people buy things even after downloading them. You see, there are people who have the means and desire to support authors and artists. Not every filesharer is a greedy pig, like the industries and neo.styles would want you to think.
People are more or less willing to pay for things depending on where the money goes. I, for example, am fine with buying music or whatever, so long as most (if not all) of the money goes towards the artists, not the record labels. Besides, there are other factors at work with TPB’s situation. For example, I hear that the new site will utilize DRM. Screw that.
Does it really? If I save ten bucks by downloading something, I think I’m more likely to spend that money elsewhere than just hoard it. How does that hurt economies?
Nice ad hom. ;)
Correct. Credit card details, bank account numbers, personal identification numbers, etc, can all be digital. But if you release something to the public and don’t want it to be shared, don’t release it digitally.
What the majority of artists, actors, writers, and so on want doesn’t matter. Companies and corporations hold the rights to their works, and they are of course bent on profit.
Does it? I recall the case of Batman Begins, which was downloaded a massive number of times and yet still made top dollar. Seems to me like downloading didn’t really hurt its sales.
Filesharing isn’t a crime.
Oh, geez, another of these people? Alright, so you admit that you share files, because it’s convenient for you, and then you turn around and bash it on a public forum. I couldn’t think of a better example of hypocrisy if I tried.
It also takes them longer to make it than it does for you to buy it from a store. This has what to do with anything?
When you hork a CD, the store no longer has the CD and cannot sell it. It is a guaranteed ‘loss.’ When you download one, nothing is taken from anyone (since files are copied and not actually transferred), not even a supposed loss because you can’t know that the downloader would have bought the CD otherwise.
Absolutely. You’re stealing cars? Jewelry? CDs? Government secrets? And not paying for them? Yes, you’re a thief. But oh, wait, you’re downloading a digital file? I guess you can’t be a thief since you aren’t taking anything from anyone.
We don’t share files just ‘because they’re digital.’ Digital files can be endlessly copied. There is no such thing as scarcity when it comes to digital files. When you share a file, nothing is lost. Compare that with physical objects, in which there is a direct loss to he who shares. Digital files are the exact same thing as thoughts in this regard- they can be endlessly replicated and spread throughout the world, without any packaging or shipping costs. It is not the format that matters, but the qualities of that format.
“The internet itself is designed as a mesh network. The backbones we have are a design necessity because the need to pay to have large wires span long distances. With a wireless mesh network, it wouldn’t be necessary to have those backbones… The OLPC is proving that ad-hoc mesh networks are cheap and effective…
That is when the cost of the internet is not going to be paid for by ISPs, but by the individuals and businesses that buy computers and carry them around with them…
I think that simply selling off control of this spectrum is probably very short sighted and is more than likely a huge waste of a valuable resource.”
(post’s spelling corrected)
From:
– http://aplawrence.com/Opinion/700Mhz.html
Some technologies/policies and their public-value possibilities can be “killed” or “castrated” by private (corporate) interests before they even see the light of day.
Just a question, if piracy is causing so much damage for the industry answer this:
- Why is that after 10 years the industry is still renting their stuff at billions per year in revenue?
If no one pays for nothing if they can have it for free how is that these people are still making money out off thin air?
Besides TV and radio allowed millions to copy and distribute copyright material and still after decades no one stopped buying?
It is that not odd?
What copytards want is to take away the rights of the people so they can create even more absurd concepts to make more money.
And we all have the right to use ideas freely, copyright is not a lubricant in the machine it sand.
Show us any other person that have the right to collect money for his work for 120 fucking years.
Show us the harm done because I doubt you can prove it.
For all copytards.
Veni, vidi, vici
LoL
“It has every characteristic of physical theft.”
Wrong. Theft by definition involves the deprivation of another person’s possession – i.e. if I take it, he no longer has it.
With replication, he has it, and so do I. I thereby destroy a monopoly – in other words, I reduce his power. But his possessions remain intact.
You may say that it is wrong for me to destroy his monopoly – which is the basis of his livelihood. And I will laugh in your face – for the world doesn’t owe you or me or him a living!
“if you replicate something for ten people then thats 10 people who no longer need to buy it if 100 people or 1000 or even a million people do it then why buy anything”
Exactly – that’s the great thing about filesharing – it is the creation of wealth without money.
That’s the future – especially with Reprap coming along. More wealth – and less money.
If you are still confused, try reading Thorstein Veblen’s ‘The Vested Interests and the Common Man’, or watching Zeitgeist:Addendum.
Intellectual piracy doesn’t exist? Uhm.. you wish, buddy. >_> Whether you like it or not, it’s a law.
My fav quote (although most commenters here got the points I was thinking, correcting the riaatards, MAN what a nice one. lmao. freetards was also funny but not AS funny ;)
As for the law of it all, they’ll change the laws as they see fit, forgetting about viewer rights and copy rights (right to copy not right to restrict sharing, also called copywrongs)
After the laws are SO oppressive and non representative of the public interest the new blood will enter the house/senate and fix things up. This new breed of human works their normal jobs but some aren’t bought (as easily).
Imagine a House of Commons/Senate where the MP’s/Senators represent us, the people?
“yer sueing our citizens, cease NOW or risk not being able to renew your business license”…
much different then lobbyists/professional bribing campaigns “fixing” our laws against popular opinion
In any case people will step up to fill the obvious void of proper representation. Pirate Party(ies), open source government(s), votable dollars (20% of taxes spent by citizen), and online voting on current issues like this along side our mp’s votes to see just HOW MUCH they differ.
Just a bit of organization to get proper things in order for the public. If we can vote on digg.com then surely we can vote outdated laws out! ;)
So he basically went like “selling information and owning copyright is evil, so please buy my copyrighted book for $57 to get more information on it.”
hey people, could you please recommend me some good readings on this topic? (i can’t find this one) thanks in advance.
The Internet wrote:
“Veni, vidi, vici
LoL”
:)
“Caveat venditor is Latin for ‘let the seller beware’. It is a counter to caveat emptor, and suggests that sellers too can be deceived in a market transaction. This forces the seller to take responsibility for the product, and discourages sellers from selling products of unreasonable quality.”
– Wikipedia
And how about Robin Hood? What did he do? He stole from the rich to give to the poor… with his band of merry men. A do-good land pirate!
?
oops wrong symbol haha!
@ Common Man:
I’ve heard of reprap. Pretty cool. They use (or used) a software for it that I also use.
Canuck P2P Advocate! wrote:
“yer sueing our citizens, cease NOW or risk not being able to renew your business license”…
Too good to be true.
We recently had a nice example on how readily available ‘illegal’ mp3 didn’t hurt the artists profits and more, boosted the sales of digital files that were already available for free. All this blabbing that file sharing hurts the revenues is just bullshit from incompetent people that can’t give the consumers a reason to buy their work (yeah, you suck if you can’t make people buy your stuff even when they can get for free).
Before criticizing file sharing start analysing it without pre-judging it as a profit killing monster. And while you are at it, make better songs or start scheduling live performances (artists) and start paying the artists properly, offering decent prices and taking advantage on what file sharing has to offer (entertainment industry).
@neostyles
You state that filesharers are thieves. It is the industries, however, that are the home of the real thieves.
Consider copyright. An artificial monopoly granted by the federal government on the use of a work. In today’s world, with the public’s access to the Internet and to personal computers, copyright is obsolete. When once it was a public good, restricting only publishers, it is now a public restriction for the benefit of publishers. Copyright law takes away the freedom of the public in the name of profit for corporations and companies, and for this reason, it cannot be tolerated.
Publishers use copyright as a tool from which to profit. This is not how copyright was meant to be used, nor should it be used this way. When you purchase a copyrighted work, you are surrendering your freedom: your freedom to reproduce the work and share it with others. In the case of proprietary software, you are also surrendering other freedoms regarding software (namely, the freedoms to study and change the software), but that’s got its own little niche. During the days of the printing press, when copyright was established, the public had little need for these freedoms, since they couldn’t exercise them. After all, it was difficult to copy books unless you had a printing press, in which case you would have been performing an industrial activity- which is exactly what copyright was designed to restrict. Nowadays, the public can actually utilize the freedoms that it would surrender to copyright, and there are people who are deciding that copyright is no longer as sweet a deal as it once was. Some of these people choose to reject current copyright law, and to nonviolently show their dissent by civil disobedience. This is called filesharing.
One, it’s impossible to illegally share something that is released under a Creative Commons license (not the license; please do some reading up on relevant facts before posting), as CC licenses all authorize noncommercial distribution, and some authorize commercial distribution. Two, how is this relevant? My point was that, contrary to your statement that without copyright there is no incentive to create, people do create when they are not getting paid for each copy that exists on peoples’ hard drives.
This is false; the original point of copyright was to further the progress of science and the arts.
Ignoring your ‘freetards’ slur, this is also false. People do not share files simply because they are proprietary files. If you look on a .torrent indexer, you will see torrent files for unauthorized files as well as authorized files.
neostyles, I know that you love to use your propaganda terms, but it’s time to call you out on them. “Piracy.” Stating that sharing files with others is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship, looting its cargo, and killing its crew is outrageous. “Intellectual property.” This is a propaganda term designed to group together laws that are very different, and yet used to justify increased control over the public. “Greed.” You have yet to demonstrate that filesharing is based on greed, when it is based on people who freely give away copies of the files they have. Besides, to claim that every download is motivated by greed is a mass generalization, and an insult to those who share with actual reason, such as a sincere belief that society can benefit from noncommercial distribution of music, movies, and especially software.
Which is the greater thief, neostyles: The ordinary person who downloads a song, or the multibillion dollar corporation that forces the public to surrender its freedoms in the name of its profits?
much blabla, less real information
it’s just the same old arguements everyone heard about and everyone can think about, because they are obvious … he just want to advertise his book … why do you allow such cheap advertising TF? i thought it’s a ground (or better “golden”) rule to divide advertising and real (jounalism) content
@neo.styles
Actually the business model of the industry is still flawed and creating pirates out of people who wouldn’t normally even do it and if you cannot see this simple aspect, then the industry is blind and lacks innovation and a clear strategic forward looking business plan and risks epic failure just like any other directionless company.
I now live in a non European, or English speaking country. I have a massive DVD , CD and games collection all legitimately purchased, but as I travel a lot I want to be able to take my media with me. How do I do this? Physical CD’s and DVD’s take up a shed load of space and get stuffed quickly with being packed around the place, so the obvious answer was to rip them into a digital format so they took no space on my laptop, or an external hard drive. If I have purchased the said CD, DVD, or game I should be allowed to do this, but the industry says no. Even though in many countries in the world it is perfectly legal to make a back up copy of anything you have purchased.
Then there was the brilliant idea of DVD region codes, so even when I would like to buy a new DVD in another country it will not play (that was if I found one that also had English on it), so there became no reason to buy new DVD’s as I started to spend more and more time away from the country where my laptop was purchased. Sure, I could go down to the market and buy the region free DVD’s etc, but then I am truly supporting people profiteering by selling the works of other people and these are some of the nasty groups you like to take about – They also still sell VHS and cassette tapes by the way.
I would happily use iTunes, or the likes to buy my media, but because of the business models and restrictions based upon countries I simply cannot, as my credit cards are not valid for any of the iTunes stores, as I am not in their region.
Why cannot the industry create a global store, with the same pricing for everybody, that can be accessed from anywhere in the world?? You account should always remain as a back up to your purchases, so if the file is deleted, then it can be downloaded again for free and if a new movie format comes out, then it should only costs a minor charge per movie to have it all updated into the new format. Until this model is approached then there is a large section of the population that has no other option aside from downloading something to watch. If the pricing is set too high for someone in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe etc, then it is set too high for someone in the UK, Europe, or the US as well. You are trying to convert over those people that download, but would pay if they could or it was a reasonable price and they had options, not the section of the community that are downloader’s and hoarders and generally would never buy it in the first place even if they had to money to do so. If fact I doubt they even watch/listen/play the majority of what they download.
If you build it, they will come, to quote Field of Dreams. The industry originally scoffed at iTunes, but look at how well they are doing? It is physically impossible for a retail store to stock the line item depths that digital media can be stored on and then sold through the likes of an iTunes.
But at the same time, for a movie studio to still be charging for a movie greater than 30yrs old, a games studio for a game greater than 10yrs old and music greater than 40yrs old is pure and simple GREED, which is what many people object to – bought the LP, the Tape, the CD, then the DVD of so many artists. Same with my old VHS collection, then the Laserdisc, later DVD, but I refuse to buy everything again on Blu-Ray
For many of the TV shows I download I could simply go to the broadcaster’s websites and watch it via streaming for free, but again the industry forgets that much of the world doesn’t have the bandwidth speeds, or download limits to make this viable either.
So what other option do I have? Sit at home and play with myself, or turn to torrent sites because of no other legal option? On the other hand, I have stumbled across many TV shows, movies and music that I would never have even considered previously and that has resulted in sales to them.
, but americans (at least) know how well 3 strikes laws work. get busted once, shame shame. but two more times and ‘youll be playing with your life’ as gangsta boo puts it. or am i not allowed to transcribe an artists spoken words?
20-25 is no joke. especially when its for stealing movies for your kids or a snickers bar.
I believe most people misinterpret the term copyright as the right to make a profit. It’s not. The creator does not get own his creation, he merely owns the right to copy and distribute it. Wether or not that can be translated into profit is not a given by any means.
Therefore, the mere fact that torrenting hurts CD sales is not enough to be calling it anything, let alone theft. The only thing that has changed in my life since I started torrenting is that I watch less “live” TV and that I largely stopped reading books, because watching (torrented) TV takes far less energy that reading and now, there’s always something to watch. So the people writing books should be sueing the people making TV, I guess?
I don’t want CD’s. They’re useless piles of plastic taking up shelfspace while waiting to foul up the environment. I also don’t want to pay for stuff that will eventually be on TV for free anyway (not that the TV is free, I get to pay for all the programs I don’t watch). I just *might* pay to download something, but it will have to work quicker and easier than torrenting before I’d even consider it and that’s a really tall order.
There are three major issues here:
1.- Copyright is antinatural and “we the people” are rebealing aginst it… it’s just that not always are a few tea boxes near to throw overboard.
2.- Most production companies are merely money-making machines away completely from the creative act. They are accustomed to exclusivity and to control the price of things, although they know that the end is the law of offer and demand what rules… The problem is that they are not accustomed be the consumer who wants, from the beginning and directly, control the price of what they sell. Internet has restored that power to us, and they are fighting against us to recover it
3.- For many films that a Russian may record on a theater, never will learn that once adjusted should put the camera focus and aperture in manual… so movie makers will always have an opportunity to sell some tickets and some DVD’s… ;-)
@65 : Are you implying that good things don’t get pirated? Have you seen how much batman the dark knight and call of duty 4 got pirated?
@4nd : I replied to your post, but TF isn’t letting me post my comment..
3 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.