next »

[Sern]

BitTorrent

This was intended to be a reply to this topic but I realized at this point (as you can see below) I would have been taking the entire topic waaaaaaaayyyy off topic. Therefore I chose to create a new topic that would address my need to respond to the other....responses, in regard to the following.

I'm not going to quote people specifically as this is meant to address the full scope of the issue.

A lot of people assume BitTorrent programs are all used for piracy which is not the case. Many of these same people also think that BitTorrent trackers also share the brunt of the blame, which is also not the case.

People drink and drive. Does that mean we should outlaw certain kinds of vehicles based on how likely it is that someone will drink and drive during its operation? Uhh, well that doesn't even make sense. Then why outlaw certain kinds of sites because they may be more prone to being used illegally than others? This will always be the case.

Terrorists are most likely to attack targets which are heavily populated. So....should our government then issue a law stating that any sizable group over a predetermined limit shall be disbanded or arrested and tried? Doesn't really make sense either, does it. This isn't thinking big, it's thinking small. It's ineffective, stupid, and it doesn't attempt to solve or create long term working solutions toward preventing these issues from arising repeatedly in the future. It's the same thing with airport security but that's another topic of discussion.

The point is to create long term working solutions to problems. But that takes time, money, effort, and requires you to give a damn.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) don't want to wait while law enforcement sift through each user IP to see who is violating and who is not. These two organizations would rather mass categorize all trackers and all BitTorrent protocol programs as copyright infringers. They have already attempted to do so and failed. Need I repeat myself; this is stupid, lazy, and ineffective if you also gauge effectiveness by what is right or wrong.

Both BitTorrent protocol and tracker sites can be used as legitimately or illegitimately as the owner(s) and/or user base choose. Are these two mediums of file sharing used in illegal ways? Yes. Does that mean we should be lazy and shut them all down, terminating their full potential and punishing users who legally operate such software and tracker sites? I think not. But the MPAA and RIAA don't want to be selective, they don't care. They just want their money! And then some.

Of most legal cases I've reviewed they don't just want the defendant to pay lawyer fees, court costs, and a reasonable sum (based on the value of downloaded material and to the extent it was shared). They want blood money. In the first case against file sharing, Capitol v. Thomas, the RIAA was willing to settle initially for $5,000 USD in conjunction with a cease and desist letter. Defendant Thomas refused the settlement offer. As far as what the article provides there seems to be no way to determine how the RIAA calculated or came up with the $5,000 USD as recompense. When Thomas refused the initial settlement offer it was upped to 222,000 USD, then 1.92 million ($80,000 per song of 24 songs which were sought as damages).

Now in civil cases it is up to the jury to decide what amount is fair for the defendant to pay the plaintiff if they are found guilty. Let's say each of the 24 songs were $2 USD each (which is about $1 USD over what most songs on i-Tunes are so I am over estimating). That would amount to a total cost of $48 USD. That's under $300 USD which means it is a misdemeanor theft, not a felony. Now let's say they included the other peers she uploaded the song to, if she did. The chances that were to exceed $300 USD are low in my opinion because she would have had to re-up the same 24 songs more than 5 times for each song. Being that their residence wasn't in the city, the chances of them having fast internet transfer speeds is probably pretty low.

You could also say, if you read the article, that the plaintiff's said something to the effect of, "We are aware of 1,702 songs you shared online but we only want to sue you for 24 of them." Say what? Well if we were then to consider what I said in the above paragraph, why are they suing for such insane amounts of money? If they wanted to sue for that much why didn't they just sue for all 1,702 songs she allegedly shared?

Furthermore the defendant, Thomas, stated she was not aware of the downloads. She submitted the hard drive in question for review.

Thomas contended that she was not the person behind the "tereastarr" account and denied having downloaded any files.[1][13] During the trial, her lawyer suggested her computer could have been under the control of people elsewhere due to "a spoof, a zombie or some other type of hack".[14] Juror Michael Hegg later commented, "She's a liar."[15] A hard drive containing the copyrighted songs was never presented at the trial, though Thomas did turn over a hard drive that referenced neither Kazaa nor the infringing files to the plaintiffs' attorneys.[14][15]

The jury was instructed that merely "making available" sufficed to constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution right, even without proof of any actual distribution.[1][16][17]

From this, you could determine that the jurors already appear biased, thus a mistrial should be called. A biased jury is not a fair jury. The main key of evidence was not presented at trial, WHAT? Why? The burden of proof in a civil case has to be a preponderance of the evidence, 51 percent sure. If the proof was non existent then how could the jury come to a conclusion other than not guilty?

In my opinion the MPAA and RIAA are a bunch of stuck up twats twiddling their thumbs coming up with new ways to control mass media so the 0's in their bank accounts and lobbyist power continue to grow to irrevocable limits. These are the same people responsible for saying good bye to free unregulated internet, or trying to; SOPA & PIPA.

The english Wikipedia site also showed up for protest which can be seen here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Wikipedia_Blackout_Screen.jpg

Cary Sherman is an American lawyer and lobbyist, CEO of RIAA. Sherman is a smart douche, working for other smart douches, figuring out new ways to douche the system. Sherman is a strong advocate of SOPA & PIPA.

Following the defeat of the bills in January 2012, Sherman penned an op-ed in The New York Times critical of the bills' detractors and their motives.[6] The opinion piece was criticized for factual inaccuracy and demagoguery.[7][8]

This man has corporate elite written all over his background, more than I mentioned here. He was grown from a seed within the RIAA and now sits at its head, seething at the mouth. This man is one of many who were born into these once useful organizations who constantly seek the attention of and lobby our government to make changes which benefit the few and damage the masses.

Make no mistake. They now seek to protect their investments, their profits. Well, their members are their profits.

The RIAA represents over 1,600 member labels, which are private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, and collectively create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the United States. The largest and most influential of the members are the "Big Four" that include:

EMI
Sony Music Entertainment
Universal Music Group
Warner Music Group
The RIAA reports that total retail value of recordings sold by their members was $10.4 billion[6] at the end of 2007, a decline from $14.6 billion in 1999.

It is not only unfair to punish the group for the actions of individuals, it's down right lazy (reference to SOPA & PIPA but also speaking generally). But society has been doing this for a long time. Punish and scorn the few and drown out the minority. It's easy to see the world in black and white because it takes less effort. But does that mean the world is black and white? Absolutely not, it's full of color....which is why we should treat each other the same way we view nature. Although I will say if nature could be represented by a living demographic of people it would be one massive horror movie. Considering that we treat nature like sh*t. But that's why I said the way we 'view' nature, not 'treat' nature.

I rest my case.

P.S. - If you have anything you want to add, feel free. Also, I hope I did not offend anyone. It was simply my goal to inform the best I could and cite sources which could be checked for integrity.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(protocol)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cary_Sherman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act

[pspeed]

For those in the audience that are not United Statesians, you can skip this but everyone else interesting in why copyright is screwed up (and how it's a bigger problem) should watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

It's long but worth it.  If you only have a chance to watch a few minutes of it then maybe skip ahead to 6 minutes and watch past the "no brainer" part.

[FutureB]

yea i agree with your general idea your putting out. in my country- New Zealand torrenting is banned, at first the ip provider would dob everyone who still did it in and they would have to pay 50 dollars for there first offence if they do it 3 times they get there ip blocked and cant use internet anymore but the internet providers are fed up with it and cant be bothered sending in everyone's ip since people keep on doing it. so over all banning torrenting has failed here and we only have 4 million people nothing huge and our providers have given up on stopping people torrenting so what im getting at is a few people will always be penilised but over all there never going to suceded in stopping us. i have over 3000 songs - 22gb - 10 days strait of music and i have payed for around 200 songs outa all of that and i haven't been penilised so to me ill keep downloading music until someone trys stop me hehe

[Sern]

For those in the audience that are not United Statesians, you can skip this but everyone else interesting in why copyright is screwed up (and how it's a bigger problem) should watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

It's long but worth it.  If you only have a chance to watch a few minutes of it then maybe skip ahead to 6 minutes and watch past the "no brainer" part.

That's an awesome video. It's going in my media bank for future reference and sharing. I'm only 25 minutes into it so far but I will have to continue it later.

[ap0r]

Wow, that left me thinking, Sern.

Really interesting topic! It's good when someone takes their time to share. I never would have tought that my actions could have these kinds of reactions lol -_-

Cheers

[belgariad87]

I completely and totally agree. But i highly doubt most people will, as you put it "give a damn" until its too late.

i am definitely going to keep that video in my favorites for future reference.

[pspeed]

I completely and totally agree. But i highly doubt most people will, as you put it "give a damn" until its too late.

i am definitely going to keep that video in my favorites for future reference.

I've followed Lessig for some time now.  When he first abandoned direct copyright activism in favor of solving what he saw as the real problem his message was much more toned done.  He'd show examples and point to the fact that there was a potential conflict of interest... so it didn't matter if there actually _was_ corruption.  The appearance was enough to show the system was broken.

As the years have gone by and evidence has mounted in his arguments favor, his message is much more direct and depressing.  It's clear that there is no longer just the appearance of corruption but actual corruption.  The examples are insanely compelling.  And the system is not going to vote to tear itself down.

[Sern]

Wow, that left me thinking, Sern.

Really interesting topic! It's good when someone takes their time to share. I never would have tought that my actions could have these kinds of reactions lol -_-

Cheers

Thanks. My goal was simply to provide an informative topic with references. Whenever I see misconceptions or false statements I suddenly feel the need to provide information to the contrary. I think that when any of us see something that is wrong, physically or verbally passed on, it is up to us to attempt to rectify it.

But you have to be careful how you do it. At times past, I've made an attempt to correct someone on something (99% of the time I look things up before opening my mouth to be sure I know what I'm talking about so I don't spread further false statements) and when I go to look up the info to provide in my 'correction' I find that in fact I may have been wrong to varying degrees. I think this is good though, not being wrong, but spending the time to look these things up and correct myself even before someone else has to spend their time to do it. Not only that, but in attempting to correct or refine someone else's statements and looking up my own material to provide as proof I often find myself learning more about the subject then I ever knew before.

But what is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, it can easily change over time. What is correct one year may be incorrect the next. All the more reason in my mind to make corrections when you see it needs to be done. There's nothing wrong with being wrong about something, as long as you accept that you were wrong and go from there.

I don't know why society seems to have placed this idea into people's minds that if they're wrong about something they're stupid because that's not how it works. In fact, this was the subject of a new topic I was working on in a notepad document until I got a BSoD from a corrupted file and it wasn't saved....

I completely and totally agree. But i highly doubt most people will, as you put it "give a damn" until its too late.

i am definitely going to keep that video in my favorites for future reference.

While I'm no psychologist, I have taken a number of psych classes and sociology as well. Sociology was my favorite class of them all. It gave me a new perspective on the world that no class could hope to surpass. But what would it take to get people involved? Many people feel powerless and don't know where to start. No one wants to stand out on the corner and protest by themselves do they? Even with a small group of people you tend to get mocked unless it's a subject that the majority can get behind.

Plus, to be truly effective during a protest you really need the news to cover what you're doing and why. But often times the media has just run a blackout campaign against certain types of protesters. The news media on a large scale is no longer on the people's side I don't think. They work for corporate entities and have corporate agendas. The news media used to work for us, being informative about a vast range of important issues. Now, they are incredibly selective in what they broadcast. It may not seem this way since they broadcast all day but have there ever been those days when you wondered how the news could be so tedious and boring? The world is far from boring and there is always fresh news to talk about but the major networks are rating whores. Sadly, they air what provides them ad revenue. Even worse, news agency data shows that those are the types of stories [most] Americans want to hear. Is it true? I hope not. I hope their polling data is crap, I hope it's useless and incorrect. Maybe to some extent it is but in general I think it works well enough..

But there's a big difference between not giving a damn and caring but not knowing what to do, where to start, how to make a sizable enough difference. Then there's also the 9-5 jobs, the family, the kids, the friends and relatives and bills to pay. A lot of people don't have time for much else then what their life already offers.

However, I think the change will come when people feel that their quality of life has degraded to a point where they just can't stand it anymore. Those people already exist (the 99%'s). But they do not exist at a large enough capacity. The approval rating of government being so low, hovering around 9 percent? They may be unhappy with their government but not enough yet to lay down their jobs, their family routine, and march in a direction of real change.

And the system is not going to vote to tear itself down.

No, no it's not going to tear itself down. I'm going to be honest here and say I've lost all faith in our democracy, our republic. I continue to vote, but not because I'm happy with the candidates. Although, I vote for exactly who I think would best represent the interests of this country, not who the mainstream media and two major parties put forward as our only choices. If that means I have to write in a name, I do it. I refuse to be reduced to two choices when I think both are crap. How often do you hear people voting for one candidate, not because they think they're a good fit, but because they don't want the other candidate in office? I have seen this frequently. Further evidence the system is broken.

I can be quite sure that the one I will be voting for this election will not be elected but I don't care. I'm making a statement with my vote. Not voting, you make no statement to anyone, you just don't 'count'. I will be counted, but it won't be among those who vote for Romney or Obama. I think if more people voted for exactly who they wanted, and not for whom they were whittled down to, the polls would be much more interesting.


I think this was a valuable discussion and I'll be finishing that video later today.

[Tsuku]

Haha, what you say about the voting reminds me of a quote from "New model army" by Adam Roberts. I don't remember the exact quote, but he says something along the lines that nowadays, we don't have a true democracy, we have an "oligarchy" punctuated by televised popularity contests every few years... And it's funny how true that is. We only really influence who rules us, it's incredibly hard for us to actually get the people to do what they promised once theyre in power.

It makes you think, what with the influence of the media, and the huge slander campaigns, how many people actually vote for the person whose platform they agree with more, and how many people vote for the person they consider more "likable." Considering that their "likability" is just a facade for the television, it's like voting for the person with the shiniest car: not a sound choice. We even see the facade slip at times, like with the recent Romney scandal.

I'm not an American citizen, but I do not envy you having to vote for a president who has done nothing, and a president who will do nothing.

On that note, at least you're lucky you live in a republic. I live in a "constitutional monarchy" run by a parliament, and that works even worse than a republic haha 

[pspeed]

Haha, what you say about the voting reminds me of a quote from "New model army" by Adam Roberts. I don't remember the exact quote, but he says something along the lines that nowadays, we don't have a true democracy, we have an "oligarchy" punctuated by televised popularity contests every few years... And it's funny how true that is. We only really influence who rules us, it's incredibly hard for us to actually get the people to do what they promised once theyre in power.

It makes you think, what with the influence of the media, and the huge slander campaigns, how many people actually vote for the person whose platform they agree with more, and how many people vote for the person they consider more "likable." Considering that their "likability" is just a facade for the television, it's like voting for the person with the shiniest car: not a sound choice. We even see the facade slip at times, like with the recent Romney scandal.

I'm not an American citizen, but I do not envy you having to vote for a president who has done nothing, and a president who will do nothing.

On that note, at least you're lucky you live in a republic. I live in a "constitutional monarchy" run by a parliament, and that works even worse than a republic haha 

Yeah, that video I linked describes pretty well why gov't gets deadlocked on even simple stuff... more money.

[Moonkey]

Society is corrupt because of the carelessness and selfishness people put in their lives. People become play toys for the media, and have their minds manipulated to false conclusions. Because of this, nothing will be mentally stable. The only ones stable in a society keep people together. But could also be depended on which in turn could be dangerous. In a political view, you try to manipulate people to join your side. i.e. the commercials full of lies. All we can truly do is wait unless we put our foot down and say "Enough". But this is my way to look upon today's way of life. Everyone has different thoughts in their own way and you just have respect it.

And a mentally unstable society leads to false conclusions about piracy.

[Sern]

Society is corrupt because of the carelessness and selfishness people put in their lives.

For the past few years I have spent my waking hours casually asking myself from time to time, day to day, "If I could identify exactly one negative component of human existence what single definition could encompass it all?" What could explain all of the bad decisions?

I juggled a few words around for a while, slowly ruling each one out as they would fail to fit into a given scenario. My definition/word had to fit every scenario. I finally found a word that fit this definition and worked in all scenarios and to this day I have been unable to find a human moment or action in which it does not fit.

Greed.

It is the only word which could adequately describe the negative aspects of the human condition so completely in my mind. In fact I found that the only scenarios in which greed did not play some role, remote or otherwise, was when the individual had literal mental conditions outside the 'norm' of what were to be expected by your average person.

Can anyone think of something mankind or an individual has done in a negative light that did not have, to some length, something to do with greed? (And did not also pertain to an abnormal mental condition.)

Greed can take many forms and for many different reasons. Being able to classify the negative aspects of human behavior and decision making with one word seemed to offer a new kind of clarity.

[Moonkey]

That's what anchors the way of life. Greed. You can't stop it. And if you did, you can't contain it. Greed is in even the simplist of life-forms. It would be nice to look back on this one day.

Edit: I love talking to people about things like this. It really opens your eyes.

[pspeed]

In the case of money's corruption of U.S. gov't, it's not the greed of the politicians at play on the surface, but the greed of the corporations.  Politicians have developed a survival instinct that if they can't fund their next election then they are out of a job.  Because everyone else (your competition) is accepting corporate money to fund their own elections, if you don't do it then you are at a severe disadvantage.

Somewhere around half way through that video (or maybe it was further, it really is worth watching to the end if you can) the number one issue congress dealt with in 2012 was discussed.  It's not even a very important issue but there were plenty of lobbyists.  In this case, constantly switching sides on the issue earned the biggest payout because you'd get funds each time... so of course the issue was never really going to get resolved.  Which, by the way, is also fine with the corporations usually.  "Business as usual" is better than many alternatives.

This is a prime example of where it's actually in the best interest of congress to make sure nothing happens but talk.  So either they make decisions that are bad for us and good for corporations... or they try and make no decision at all.  Kind of disgusting, really.

[Tsuku]

I disagree actually, about greed being a word that can sum it up. Greed is often a motivation, but I think the real cause is a lack of self-control; acting without thinking. Greed is a perfectly normal, natural and sometimes even healthy emotion; greed is just an extreme form of self-preservation. I think that everyone feels greed at times, and that it's even ok sometimes to indulge in that greed. I feel however, that it is a lack of sympathy that turns greed, hate or anger into a greedy, hateful, or violent action. The desire for more - or in this case, too much - is simply too shallow an explanation for negative human actions, the true cause of people hurting each other is a lack of self-control. Everyone hates, feels jealousy and greed, but alot of people never act on it because they have self-control, and are able to realise the effects of their actions. So yeah, to sum up, I think that a lack of self control is what causes most problems. Greed itself isn't a bad emotion, as long as you think before acting.