Open Source Torrents Forced Offline by Anti-Piracy Outfit
Written by Ernesto on December 18, 2008The Internet can prove complex to some, especially copyright holders. Recently, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) notified the webhosting company of a BitTorrent tracker dedicated to Open Source Software, that it was infringing copyright of one of their clients. Without any notice, the webhosting company pulled the tracker offline, not realizing that the tracker had done nothing wrong.
For those new to BitTorrent, terms like trackers and .torrent files might be confusing. When someone decides to share a file with others, they make a .torrent file, and add a tracker url that tells the downloader where it can find the other peers sharing the same file. A tracker doesn’t have to host the .torrent file, and is only a means of communication between BitTorrent users. They are no more liable than any ISP in this respect.
There are thousands of open BitTorrent trackers on the Internet, and most of these don’t actually host all the files on their website. However, since they are open, anyone can add the tracker to their torrent file. The tracker owner has no knowledge of the files being spread via his or her tracker. Recently the popular Internet TV network Revision3 was attacked by MediaDefender because they were running an open tracker, and they are not alone.
This week, ‘Open Source Torrents‘ had to deal with some remarkable consequences of hosting an open BitTorrent tracker. The tracker, dedicated to sharing Open Source Software through BitTorrent, was taken offline because it allegedly infringed the copyright of the game ‘Command&Conquer Red Alert 3′. There was never a .torrent file for this material stored on the server though, only hashes of data.
The webhost, Liandra Tech, took the tracker offline after it received a copyright infringement notice from ESA. “We have to terminate your webhosting account with us, due to complaint about copyright material infringement on ostorr.org,” they wrote to the founder of the site, as they forwarded the email they got from ESA.
Akash, the founder of the tracker was very surprised by the decision of his webhosting company, to shut down his site without even consulting him first. “These folks shut me down for “Command and Conquer” supposedly going through my tracker. I’ve never even played the game,” Akash told TorrentFreak. “We did host some actual files, but only mirrors of the open source software we track, which is definitely perfectly legal.”
Although OStorr.org is a relatively small tracker, it has helped to spread more than 50,000 copies of The Open CD, and thousands of copies of other free and Open Source software. So, the only torrent files listed on his website were of Open Source website. The tracker was also open to anyone else, like many others, but Akash has no way of telling what files are tracked.
Akash is forced to find a more understanding host now, but he assured us that the tracker will return. “Open source software is about as legal as it gets. Apparently not. Time to find a new host,” he said.
Update: Looks like the webhost made the right decision after all, Akash just wrote us: “After a lengthy apology from Liandra due to a misunderstanding that I had uploaded the C&C torrent (I’m told C&C is actually a pretty dodgy game…), I’ve been offered three months of free hosting. The site’s up and running and I’m going to block all non-authorised torrents.”
Previously: TorrentFreak TV Episode 5
Next: RIAA Stops Lawsuits, But Not the Threats
63 Responses
Sucks, once again the true evul shows its face..
I guess that the crowd who keep saying that “modifying” and contributing to a work is the same as stealing will continue to harp on the idea that “if you work for free and give it out, that’s stealing – don’t be afraid of money!” I suppose that they hate the idea of anyone doing anything for free – perhaps they just cannot believe that people actually care enough about what they are working on, to want to work on it, or something.
Roze
Time to sue the Host and this ESA mob. Contact the EFF or another body like that. Someone in the know please tell me this. What happens when these people continue to attack innocent sites? Do the state investigate them or fine them for incompetence? and what happens to the Host. Do they get hauled over the coals for breach of contract? or do they claim to be the three wise monkeys all rolled into one and saying we can terminate your contract if the wind is blowing in the other direction. Maybe fight fire with fire and attack the Host (verbally of course :P )
What a bunch of BS. This sort of thing is exactly the kind of ammunition needed to attack the copyright protectionists and their heavy-handed tactics.
“Currently tracking 14 torrents. 0 peers currently connected. 3 peers and 6 seeders active in the past 24 hours.”
“Time to sue the Host and this ESA mob. Contact the EFF or another body like that.”
+1.
This knee jerk reaction that a lot of hosts have trusting scum like the MPAA/RIAA/ESA/BPI etc should be dealt with… and those scumbags exposed for what they really are; gangsters, and not any authority (like the police).
Its getting disgusting how these scumbags just point at people and idiots take them at their word then the _accused_ have to show they are innocent.
Isn’t the accuser meant to show some solid proof? why should the burden of proof fall on the accused?
Cheers,
http://www.eZee.se
Another win for the MAFIAA!
…
Oh, wait…
I could see why the ESA would try to shut down a tracker dedicated to opensource freeware, though. After all, they make money by sponging off of commercial videogame publishers and fooling them into thinking they actually serve some kind of purpose. Which isn’t working out too well anymore since more and more publishers are breaking their contracts with the ESA and jumping ship, but that’s neither here nor there.
Like Microsoft, they view opensource as a threat to commercial software, and therefore a direct threat to themselves since they make a living off of selling/exploiting said commercial software.
But I doubt it was a conspiracy or anything. Even though they’re paranoid opensource is gonna murder them in their sleep one day, this was probably just a result of the ESA’s pure and total fucking incompetence.
How is C&C dodgy?
@6: how isn’t C&C dodgy?
good that it was all a missunderstandung and wtg liandra to dare admit they where wrong and offer compensation :)
any NEWS no?
guess not
Oh goodie noticed the update :)
Awesome man.
I do hope the host yells at ESA and gives them a well deserved kicking!
In words but its optional.. :P
“I suppose that they hate the idea of anyone doing anything for free”
————————————–
kind of like you hate the idea of anyone doing anything for money?
(most likely because you still get a weekly allowance from your parents)
btw, i am pro open source and anti file stealing.
it’s nice to see someone who runs a torrent site vow to block all unauthorized uploads. i wish him the best of luck in his endeavors.
Retard Roze strikes again. The site was not suspended becuase they were hosting open source material, it was taken offline becuase the tard admin of the site was allowing external torrents to be tracked using his tracker url.
“if you work for free and give it out, that’s stealing – don’t be afraid of money!”
There you go making shit up again. I have seen no one imply that. A creator has every right to decide the terms of usage of theur material, it’s not up to you to dictate to them what they should do. If someone wants to write an open source application and release it under creative commons, great, more should. But if someone wants to write something else and charge you for it they should also have that right. Creative Commons and open source does not automatically mean you have a right to do with it as you please, they too are released under their own terms that may or may not allow you to alter it, copy it, distribute it ect ect ect. I suppose if someone released an open source application and asked $1 for it you’d bitch about that too.
>>11
It isn’t open source if you charge for the source code… That would be closed source…
@3: I wonder what this says for three strikes laws? Are the ISPs being forced to adopt these by the copyright-tards going to investigate cases where the person being accused of infringement is innocent?
I doubt it. It’s examples such as this one that demonstrate the failure of such draconian laws.
@11 Dec 19, 2008 at 02:05 by stfu
One right that creators do not have, though, is to dictate to others what others can do with it, short of plagiarizing or commercially exploiting it. They can indeed choose what they themselves do with it, but to dictate what others can do with it is tyranny, and a violation of the principle of property rights. It is not a natural right to take away other people’s rights – copyright is a right to take away other people’s rights. Copyright law makes it a legal right, but not a natural right, for the principle of property rights is a natural right – which copyright law contradicts. Laws which create legal rights which are contrary to natural rights are thus in fault. That the right to violate, and thus to go contrary to, natural private property rights, such as the basic right to create one’s own duplicate, and the ability to transfer ownership of such duplicates to other entities, is codified in the law, is a fault of the law, and thus is one that ought not to be obeyed, because laws which are at fault ought not to be obeyed.
The ascription of the idea of “rights” can in many cases be misconstrued to the extent that it be entirely distorted, which is particularly evident in the fact that people around the world do not have a uniform idea of “liberty.” It is well known that in the antebellum period in the north and the south, there were two conflicting ideas on the idea of “liberty” and “slavery” – that to the north, liberty was the liberty of the slaves to be free, and that to the south, liberty was the liberty to own slaves. The south, however, had the misconception that it was any natural right to take away the rights of others, such as the ownership of slaves, whereas the north had it right when they insisted that rights were actually individual rights, and that it was not any natural right to take away others’ rights, and that any such right sanctified in law is contrary such natural individual rights – and thus to goodness and morality altogether.
Similarly, copyright is not a natural individual right, but rather the legal right to take away the rights of others, rights such as the ability to create one’s own duplicates based on a pre-existing work, or the right to transmit or transfer such duplicates to other entities, or the right to use such works in the observation of the public, which are natural individual property rights, which copyright is contrary to, and which thus indicates that copyright is contrary to goodness and morality.
That propositions and deductions above are true is just so, derived from natural principles which are similarly true because they are just so, with deductions which are also natural and just so. Now let you reflect and become edified upon these above words, which you may find edifying.
Roze
Good torrent sites are the scourge of the internet.
I work for Modine Systems and we are a car manufacturer but Modine likes to get in bed with the RIAA because of the radio and music players built in. Modine wants to levy a higher fee on parts to compensate for the RIAA fees put on them, it’s a boring secret people shouldn’t know they’re paying more to Modine.
@13 Dec 19, 2008 at 02:00 by freetard
The idea of anyone doing anything for money is a necessary evil where it cannot be avoided, as such is necessary in a capitalistic system, which has proved to work better than a socialist one. However, where it can be avoided, it should be – as in the current situation now in culture, where incentive shall come as much without money as with money. After all, avarice is a motivating factor that is a bad thing, where if there is no alternative, it shall need to be used, but if there is an alternative, it no longer should be used, but the alternative instead.
@7 Dec 19, 2008 at 00:23 by Anonymous
That is the whole purpose of copyright after all: to destroy anything that is not entirely in their control, and thus to retain their stranglehold over culture.
@4 Dec 18, 2008 at 23:49 by mister_playboy
Attacks on them are good, since they are bad, but they ought not merely to be verbal. After all, words are merely words, and can do no more than emit sounds to annoy others. Action, no words, is necessary to overcome them.
Roze
Roze
Roze. You’re a moron and you offer nothing of value here. Just shut up now. Thank you.
@Anonymous
“It isn’t open source if you charge for the source code… That would be closed source…”
Wrong. It makes no difference if you charge for it or not, if you provide the source code it is open source. Yes, people do sell open sourced software just look at Red Hat or Cedega (partialy) and even Ubuntu. Closed source is where no source code is provided be it free or paid.
Roze I’m not going to even bother reading your diatribe, as the previous posted said, you have nothing of value to say, period. Untill you are writing software and releasing it with absolutely no strings attached, as my nick says, stfu.
@19 “Reasoned” Mind
My “moronic”-ness has no bearing on what I have stated previously. Whether you say I am a moron or not does not change the fact that my previous statements are simply true. The facts of reality do not change simply because I make statements, or simply because you make statements. As such, I did not create any reality in my previous posts – rather, I was elaborating on true reality for the edification of the less enlightened ones.
You also make a value judgment, namely the idea that I offer nothing of value. Of course, this depends on what you mean by the word “value” – since it can have different meanings, but for all of them, whether you say I offer anything of value does not change whether it is in fact true that I have things of value to offer. In fact, upon a reasoned reflection, it would be evident that I actually do offer things of value, since truth is valuable always, and I offer statements of truth (unlike, for example, you, who have not yet done so). Of course, that may not be true, since that is merely my judgment, which may not necessarily correspond to reality all the time. However, making such a statement of “you offer nothing of value just cause I said so” has nothing which indicates that it corresponds to reality at all.
For a “Reasoned” Mind, you sure have little reason to offer. In fact, you have not pointed out anything to indicate that anything that I have previously stated is false at all – and so they all stand as is. In fact, you have even failed to demonstrate the truth of your point – if you had any to begin with, that is.
Roze
@20 stfu
“Roze I’m not going to even bother reading your diatribe, as the previous posted said, you have nothing of value to say, period.”
Ignoring the truth does not change the truth.
“Untill you are writing software and releasing it with absolutely no strings attached, as my nick says, stfu.”
Whether I am doing that also does not change the veracity of my previous statements.
The fact is that what I have previously stated is simply true, and corresponds to true reality – and perpetual ignorance, which you have committed yourself to, does not change any of that. You have still failed to prove your point, and disprove mine.
Making random guesses about my personal self (which you have been doing), in fact, has nothing to do what my point at all. I suggest that you actually try (and inevitably fail) to prove your point instead of saying “I’m right, you’re wrong, just cause I said so.” I guess that this is just a consequence of the principle, that “if you have nothing good left to say, insult the other person.”
Roze
Roze i suppose you also want to scrap GNU/GPL licensed too? You do know that they actively encourage distruters to sell their software for as much as possible. That is they true way businesses should sell software or movies or music. That is sustainable business, not the blatently stupid idiology you spout from ever orifice.
If I may paraphrase
“”The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we’re talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes…
Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn’t more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.”"
Since you seem to be completely against any method of control you may as well just state you want to scrap open liscening and creative commons, becuase both of those are methods to contol intelectual property, which as far as you are concerned, doesn’t exist. It really on goes to prove how thick you are about the real world.
Oh, go read. And learn something.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
@23 stfu
GNU/GPL, open licensing, CC, and all of that are necessary only due to copyright, since they way they control it is essentially to relinquish control. Their purpose, after all, is to ensure that they are free from control. If there is no copyright, relinquishing control using GNU/GPL, open licensing, CC, &c. no longer be necessary.
As for profiteering from it, although it may still be unfortunate that avarice may still be the necessary motivating in certain cases, it is still unreasonable that this avarice be allowed to dictate what other people do. Although it may be alright to sell it, it is not alright for the vendor to oppress everyone else who may want to offer it for free. Indeed, people do have a natural right to sell things, but there is no natural right to tyrannize over others to ensure a revenue stream. It is a natural right to sell something, but it is not a natural right to gain a profit: that is something EARNED through good business practices.
“intelectual property, which as far as you are concerned, doesn’t exist”
Actually, the non-existence of intellectual “property” was always true, regardless of whether I say so or not. Nowhere in the law does anything say intellectual “property.” It is merely a term invented by the industry to confuse the issue.
Roze
Retarded Mind: “Roze. You’re a moron and you offer nothing of value here. Just shut up now. Thank you.
Translation: Roze. Congratulations! You’ve become a blip on my bosses’ radar! Unfortunately, they’re starting to breathe down my neck because my attempts to discredit you keep ending in failure. I think my job as a hired plant might be in jeopardy and/or the MAFIAA might rethink their contract with this viral marketting firm because our performance has been bleak lately, and right now we can’t even silence one person who’s been saying some very anti-MAFIAA things. So could you please stop? Pretty please?
Roze yet again you are incorrect, they co-exist with the tradition forms of copyright and in themselves are a form of copyright so that the author retains recognition for their work and so they can dictate fair terms under which their works can be used. Copyright was never intended to be abused to the extent that is currently is and is not inherently evil, this is why it needs reform. THose who chose to create should have the right to dictate, otherwise what is the point in them even creating anything at all if there is no proptection that they be recognised for their work. This has been true forever, even before copyright. You wish to remove any resemblance of ownership, which is wrong. You have right to expect that anyone should write a book or compose music solely for your benefit while they see so benefit at all. copyright was designed exactly for that purpose, to make sure that artists benefited from their works and that their works were protected from being bastardised. If an author releases something and they do not mind alterations fine, that is their terms, but on the same token if an autor wishes their work to remain intact and without modification that that should also be respected. Its called common courtesy, something it seems you neither know of or care about.
Pirate bay would be happy to host any torrents that get blocked :0)
@retarded mind/stfu/mafiaa plant/s
You just get pwned every time, as some else said in a earlier article
loved the geek-rage. I could picture you shaking with fury as you typed that last comment(#52). Did the pwant get his ego bwuised? Aww. :(
Thats right, anyone who has anything relevent to say that isn’t what you want to hear is a plant. Brilliant deductive reasoning there champ.
Roze: “I suppose that they hate the idea of anyone doing anything for free – perhaps they just cannot believe that people actually care enough about what they are working on, to want to work on it, or something.”
Everything regarding your opinions is so black and white – even if you’re partially right IMHO it’s still annoying because you’re ignoring what happens in the real world by people who actually produce content. You have made the observation many times here that art is somehow demeaned and not as “good” if it’s made by people who are getting paid to produce it.
Yet you have failed to point actual cases where free works of art are considered popular (IE: appreciated and contributing to people’s lives or culture generally – as “good” art should). Unless you care to post examples but even if you do they will be a tiny fraction of all art, the rest of which is produced by people getting paid. You also completely ignore the fact that art that meets these lofty aims that has been produced now and in the past for many hundreds of years has all been by somebody getting paid for their artistic endouvers.
Hasn’t it occurred to you that since people must have money to live if all artists didn’t get paid for their work there would be a massive drop in total artistic production due to the simple fact that artists would have much less time because they are earning money in some other way.
In other words your idea – that only you seem to mention here, no one else and is not supported by any artist or content producer that I’ve ever seen, unless you care to post some evidence of this – is at odds with what happens in the real world. For some reason – it comes across to me as intellectual immaturity but I may be wrong(no, the unusual/rare/long words are not fooling me) – you think you have a way to make art and culture better that others fail to see… in other words, you have delusions of granduer. I hold this view because – sticking to what happens in the real world – artists and content producers, or the vast majority of them, do not produce content and cultural artifacts for nothing. Many of these artists will sacrifice almost anything in order to produce what they believe is the highest quality possible – yet guess what: they still get paid. Because money DOESN’T ALTER THE QUALITY OF WHAT THEY PRODUCE. That idea, that artists getting paid for producing work lowers the quality of the work, is an abstract concept inside your own head that you thought up but it doesn’t hold in the real world in practice with what actually HAPPENS.
Seeing as your talking about “rights” why the hell do you have the right to expect content producers to produce art for nothing anyway?
I would definitely have found another webhost anyway. Those idiots at Liandra need to learn a lesson the hard way.
Roze: “although it may still be unfortunate that avarice may still be the necessary motivating in certain cases.”
That doesn’t make any sense gramatically – perhaps you meant “motivating factor”. In that case it still wouldn’t make any sense because by definition greed is not a necessary attribute. If something is done that demonstrates avarice it is not necessary.
Again, your warped view of money coming through clothed in quasi-religious terms and meanings (ie. greed is bad) in order to demonstrate that it’s a “bad” thing to want to profit and therefore improve one’s life materialistically.
why dont they just leave the tracker open and use a hosting company that does not remove questionalbe content like http://www.prq.se , i would have been offended that my webhosting company even tried that
I am regular torrentfreak visitor. I come here to read articles about bittorrent and all the other realted material posted here. I also like to read all comments to see what people are thinking. Some of them are costrucive addon to the discussion, others are just random words blurted out by underage kids. Latley i have been noticing the flameing that in my opinion does not suit here. This is a place where you can discuss the articles not flame others.
My suggestion to theTF staff:
Take some steps to bring back the order before every article posted here will turn out wordfight between roze and the trolls.
Warnings, bans, what ever it takes.
@ Roze and the trolls:
Roze is posting here with 10chan url, go there. It would be perfect playground for all of you. There you can pretty much express yourselves and let out all that steam.
Also may i remind, that this is an internet age and we do have all different kind of messagin services that allows people to interact with eachother … like msn, gtalk, yahoo, etc.
Now my comment to this article:
If host pulls the plug, after reciving one note from some organization who isn’t part of the law enforsment and even don’t warn the client about it, then it is not a good host for that kind of site.
As an webmaster, if i have a threath of loosing my hosting account with all the files and settings just like that … whitout any warning from the host, i would find and move to new host whitout even thinking about it.
It was nice that host send a apology and offered 3 moths of hosting for free.
well said #31
Three months of free hosting for taking down a site based on the say-so of another organisation that provided no evidence of wrongdoing? Fuck that, use up your three months then still switch hosts.
thank you for some nice reading roze, although others may not like it i did learn a little from them
Splitice
“I am regular torrentfreak visitor. I come here to read articles about bittorrent and all the other realted material posted here. I also like to read all comments to see what people are thinking.”
So… read the articles and the comments.
“Some of them are costrucive addon to the discussion, others are just random words blurted out by underage kids.”
That’s entirely your opinion and I find the first part of your post to be a waste of space. So what?
“Latley i have been noticing the flameing that in my opinion does not suit here. This is a place where you can discuss the articles not flame others.”
Lately? Where do you think the flaming is in this thread?
“My suggestion to theTF staff:
Take some steps to bring back the order before every article posted here will turn out wordfight between roze and the trolls.
Warnings, bans, what ever it takes.”
Apparently you’re quite inexperienced as far as identifying people’s posts so I’ll lay it out for you: there is no registration here so the only method of warning, banning or any other punitive action is identifying people through their IP’s or word matching. IP’s are useless because poeple either have dynamic IP addresses or use any number of web or other proxies. Word matching is useless because people can misspell, use leet speak or whatever to represent the words they wish.
“@ Roze and the trolls:
Roze is posting here with 10chan url, go there. It would be perfect playground for all of you. There you can pretty much express yourselves and let out all that steam.”
Why would anybody go to that half-assed excuse for a site: people are here to discuss the articles and points of view associated with the article.
“Also may i remind, that this is an internet age”
Wow, your smart.
“and we do have all different kind of messagin services that allows people to interact with eachother … like msn, gtalk, yahoo, etc.”
Apparently you’re clueless enough to think that people wish to talk to each other rather than make posts that the 500,000 or so other reader can view. Why don’t you go and IM someone instead of complaining about this blog’s comments. Oh wait, because no one else would read it.
In summary, you have failed to follow you’re own advice by not sticking to discussing the article – when others above you were doing that down to a man no less.
Piss off, no one gives a sh!t that your feeling comfortably superior to everyone else such that your opinion matters more than others to the extent that you feel you have the right to complain about others opinions. Of all the posts here, you’re is the most recalcitrant and moronic.
Roze
There anti-piracy outfits are starting to get on my nerves.
jess
privacy.es.tc
Here’s a fish for an unF*/\INGbelievable idiocy by Roze and the rest of the Troll gang!
>
Plz STfU ‘or’ keep silent, like the fishes do..
—–
Host should sue ESA; tracker admin should quit OSS, join the rebel forces of thePIRATEbay.ORG after getting burned by the MAFIAA,
and share some n1 movies (as a start).
TPB FTW!
cunts, i’m gonna download C&C right now just to fuck ‘em
Quite agree with Roze, BUT i think Roze is far to nice about thier arguements. Lets call a turd, a turd. Mass marketed media produced for profit isnt art. Its a revenue source, lets not pretend that anyone is “protecting” anything other than a revenue stream. Going after open source and free software is just another means of protecting revenue. In business when i have a chance to drive out a competitor I do through legal and other means. Have no doubt that this is a survival battle for revenue streams. Untill profit is driven from the industries we wont see a resurgence of “art”. If you do it for profit, Youre not doing it for art.
i wonder if any hosting companies that host riaa/mpaa sites have any pirated files that i have copyrights to. perhaps i should i ask them to shutdown.
stfu: “Thats right, anyone who has anything relevent to say that isn’t what you want to hear is a plant. Brilliant deductive reasoning there champ.”
Wrong again, but nice try. You’re a hired plant because you’re payed to visit websites and run “social engineering” for your clients. In this case, your client is the MAFIAA.
“Anyone who has anything relevent to say that isn’t what you want to hear is a plant”, though? Thanks for the laugh :D
@28 stfu
“Copyright was never intended to be abused to the extent that is currently is and is not inherently evil”
Yes, it is inherently evil, and all usage of it to restrict what other people can do with it, is abuse. Copyright takes away the natural property rights, such as creating one’s own duplicates, or the transfer of ownership of such duplicates. Any legally sanctified right that is contrary to natural rights makes it inherently evil, the same way the legally sanctified right to own slaves is contrary to the natural right to be free, and thus is inherently evil.
“Its called common courtesy”
I do not think that shutting down a website and throwing the administrators in jail is called “common courtesy.”
“Yet you have failed to point actual cases where free works of art are considered popular”
Mozart, Bach, etc. Moreover, for more modern examples, there is the innumerable fan-works out there.
“they will be a tiny fraction of all art”
No, they won’t be.
“Hasn?t it occurred to you that since people must have money to live if all artists didn?t get paid for their work there would be a massive drop in total artistic production due to the simple fact that artists would have much less time because they are earning money in some other way.”
Incorrect. The artistic drive does not depend on money.
“is not supported by any artist or content producer that I?ve ever seen”
Try coming out of the box you have been living in, and then you will see.
“money DOESN?T ALTER THE QUALITY OF WHAT THEY PRODUCE”
Actually, it does.
“that artists getting paid for producing work lowers the quality of the work, is an abstract concept inside your own head that you thought up but it doesn?t hold in the real world in practice with what actually HAPPENS.”
Actually, it does happen.
“why the hell do you have the right to expect content producers to produce art for nothing anyway”
uhh…. freedom of thought? But the fact that the expectation is reasonable in the first place is that the artistic drive does not depend on money.
“your warped view of money coming through clothed in quasi-religious terms and meanings (ie. greed is bad) in order to demonstrate that it?s a ‘bad’ thing to want to profit and therefore improve one?s life materialistically.”
Yes, it is a bad thing. I did not think I would need to tell you this, but greed is actually a BAD thing.
@39 imposter
Nice impersonation attempt, but next time, do it right, and then you will be more believable. Besides, even if you did succeed, nothing I have said would have been disproven. If you were trying to prove any point, you have failed to do so. But, it is quite nice that you have been at least somewhat reasonable in your impersonation attempt.
@44 Fedup
Well, the idea is that I am not trying to persuade anyone here. I do not seriously believe that just by making comments on this article, that their minds would be changed. I am, however, posting the comments for the observers/lurkers, and it would do well to show the observers/lurkers how pathetically wrong they are. After all, it is worst to be incorrect (although, it is quite clear already that they are incorrect, but I was just making it more clear).
Roze
It is scary just how high some companies, in this case the web host, will jump when told to by the copyright cops.
Now have we all managed to settle down and play nice?
As for Roze, good sir while I appreciate your enthusiasm for the cause you really should read more closely before posting. RE: “I suppose that they hate the idea of anyone doing anything for free…” In this case it wasn’t that it was an open source site/tracker, but the fact that someone may have used that same tracker to track things that where under copyright that got them shut down.
@48 Late again
Well, I am quite aware of the fact. I was just pointing out that copyright was used with the ultimate motive of shutting down open source sites/trackers – even if they outwardly say that it is because of the open tracker. Going after open source sites/trackers, with copyright law as their excuse (like that open tracker) is very much their goal, in fact. Copyright law, is after all, there to retain control over everything, including what the public sees and hears.
Roze
#47, the majority of your replies to #28 fell under the “It’s a fact cause i said so!” category.
but let me, perhaps waste some more of my time and try to get a straight answer out of you…if getting paid for making art actually lowers the quality of the art then why is the VAST MAJORITY of “fan made” art and fiction of a substantially lesser quality than the commercial art and fiction it’s based off?
if you aim to refute that view, please remember to cite sources instead of just making declarative statements devoid of any evidence or reason.
“why is the VAST MAJORITY of ‘fan made’ art and fiction of a substantially lesser quality than the commercial art and fiction it’s based off?
if you aim to refute that view, please remember to cite sources instead of just making declarative statements devoid of any evidence or reason.”
Actually, it is you who have failed to cite sources. There is nothing whatsoever that indicates that fan-made art and fiction is in any way inferior. In fact, it is quite unreasonable that it be so. The only reason that this fan-made stuff is never heard of so much is that the commercial avaricious culture pushes it aside with their advertising, &c. – using copyright as their predominant means to suppress it.
Roze
“There is nothing whatsoever that indicates that fan-made art and fiction is in any way inferior. ”
————————————–
i don’t think you’ll find very many people that agree with this.
i’ve read some fan fiction in the past. none of it was at a professional level.
not a single, solitary story.
if you have an example where a piece of fan fiction is of a higher quality than the original i would love to see it.
@52 Dec 20, 2008 at 04:48 by Anonymous
That merely means that you have seen little. Perhaps you might as well say that all original copyrighted fiction is also bad – since there are also a ton of those that are also bad. In all, it merely means that you are close-minded, and base your judgment of the whole based on unrepresentative parts. You must have been looking in the wrong places. For example, you should have been looking at LiveJournal instead. Moreover, you are really vague when you say “professional level” – what exactly is that? Is “professional level” anything good in the first place? I highly suspect that “professional level” is nothing good in the first place – especially since art is not about professionalism.
Here is an example of fan-art:
fi0 (dot) jp
Roze
“i don’t think you’ll find very many people that agree with this. ”
Wrong – try again. Fact of the matter is that you think wrong. The only reason you have not found good ones is because you have not tried to.
Roze
“That merely means that you have seen little.”
————————————
i have read quite a bit of fan fiction. definitely more than most. some of it was okay, the majority of it was terrible. none of it was at a level that it could be published in any of the respective professional markets that cater to the particular genres or the series themselves from which the fan fiction was derived.
“Perhaps you might as well say that all original copyrighted fiction is also bad”
————————————
you could. if you were retarded and wore diapers and enjoyed laughing at your own hallucinations…
that website you cited is unreadable to me.
my challenge stands, show me an example of fan fiction being better than the original work it’s based off.
i dare you to prove me wrong.
until you can, i will continue to say that there exists a gulf of quality between fan fiction and the professional work it’s based off.
My example was of fan-art. Click on the first red link on the top.
Roze
Also, if you have a different example, there is somnambuling (dot) livejournal (dot) com.
Also, I don’t get what you mean by “could be published.” Certainly publishers select what is published, but what is ultimately of value does not depend on what “could be published.” So your point is moot.
Roze
And a third example:
the-moon (dot) whitesnow (dot) jp (slash) gallery (dot) htm
Roze
Also, I don’t find The Great Gatsby or Harry Potter much greater than some fan-fiction I have seen.
Roze
It’s like the late, great Bill Hicks once said (& I paraphrase):
You shill for Doritos & you’re off the ‘Artistic Roll Call’.
The creative drive isn’t regulated by the dollar bill, you mammon-tards. Stopp putting a facking dollar bill on everything that exists, you worthless dog-waste.
P.S. Marketing People: Kill yourselves (just planting seeds here…)
This is rather sad, I saw their site is under a lot of development now.
Well, we actually have an Open Source torrent tracker too, feel free to stop by…
http://www.openportal.co.za/tracker
Indeed, the true purpose of copyright has nothing to do with monetary incentive, because it is not necessary. Rather, it is idea that people can own abstract ideas or thoughts, and can control what other people do with them. It is to "protect" their ideas or thoughts from usages that they do not approve of, and to control other people's usages of these ideas or thoughts. This, of course, is tantamount to thought police, and the taking away of freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Of course, you are an industry advocate, so you do advocate the taking away of freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
Well, that's the problem, they were tracking "open source" software. With free software it wouldn't happen.
Just my two seeds ;)
Pretty crazy that the fear of legal action is so intense, understandably, that the default action is to shoot first ask questions later.
I'm a bit confused by the update because you're saying the host made the right decision by shutting them down, but it sounds like the host apologized for it and that it was a misunderstanding that Akash uploaded C&C.
Either way, good news that the problem was resolved and the torrents are continuing to flow.
4 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.