Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: vyper on May 13, 2005, 06:33:54 pm
-
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20050512214338719
Below is a list of the six BitTorrent sites being sued by the MPAA. Together, these sites facilitate the illegal swapping of copyrighted material to over 100,000 people daily.
# ShunTV [//www.shuntv.net] – ShunTV specializes in distributing recent television shows. It has around 10,000 registered users. A regular team of users (dubbed "TeamTV") appears to upload content on a daily basis as shows are broadcast. The site even includes a "Calendar" of television programs showing the date of broadcast and whether a copy is available on the server.
# Zonatracker [//www.zonatracker.com] – Zonatracker is mostly in Spanish and has over 2500 users. It offers hundreds of popular movies, including many movies still in theaters. The Zonatracker tracker is also used by another Spanishlanguage torrent site, Zonadivx.com.
# Btefnet [//www.btefnet.net] – This torrent site and the eight associated servers specialize in distributing television shows. The torrent site shows that there are over 48,000 registered users seeding files on the servers.
# Scifi-Classics [scifi-classics.net] – This site is designed to distribute science fiction content. Torrents are posted in the forum section and tracked by the associated server. There are over 1600 registered users in the forum section.
# CDDVDHeaven [cddvdheaven.co.uk] – This site has over 8000 registered users, and averaged over 1500 visits a day in March 2005 according to statistics posted on the site. It currently lists over 100 torrents for a variety of movies and televisions shows. The site profits by giving privileges to users who make monetary contributions to the site, allowing them faster downloading speeds without requiring them to upload torrents.
# Bragginrights [//www.bragginrights.biz] – Bragginrights has over 12,000 registered users and a wide variety of torrents, including those for films currently in theaters. It solicits donations to make money.
God damnit.
-
I was just about to ask about BTEFNET. Honestly, just now.
Looks like they're getting serious. Bastards.
-
First TVTorrent and Supernova, and now this! Where am i gonna get illegal d/ls now? hmmm?
-
Bollocks! Where am I gonna get those Dr Who episodes from now?!
-
http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/friday/22/ubastrds.wav
originally posted by anon from way back when Suprnova went down.
-
I see the MPAA are indulging in their favourite cash-consuming pastime of herding cats again. :/
I wouldn't mind if it wasn't money they are ripping off of paying consumers to do it with. I buy my ****, and even I'm getting pissed off with this tantrum throwing. Why can't the record companies admit they charge too much and are ripping people off left right and centre instead of this constant and pointless exercise?
-
Actually, this seems to be mostly targetting TV shows. The only rationale against downloading TV shows is that they rarely leave the commercials in, which is how the networks profit. But TiVO does the same thing, and it's not illegal. They should just strike up a deal with the torrent sites: leave the commericuals in, and you can stay. I wouldn't mind it, and I think the same can be said for most other people.
-
The MPAA didn't sue TiVO, but they managed to scare it a bit methinks;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/18/tivo_no_skipping/
[q]Time shifting DVR pioneer TiVo will soon display pop-up ads when users attempt to skip commercials, the LA Times reports today. TiVo owners will still be able to fast forward, but will be forced to watch a billboard style ad on screen.
It's the latest in a series of compromises that threaten to leave the highly-regarded company offering little more than a generic set-top box UI.
Increasingly broadcasters are introducing restrictions on their programming. In recent weeks HBO announced that it will be locking down all its content to a specific device from next June, forbidding any copies to be made.
TiVo's jumped the gun, introducing similar copy controls on pay-per-view and VoD programming. TiVo general counsel Matthew Zinn defended the company's decision to incorporate potentially more restrictive DRM from his provider Macrovision, and acknowledged it was "a slippery slope".
"I think content owners are beginning to recognize that if you make things too restrictive, then consumers will find nonlegal ways to achieve what they want," he claimed. There's no evidence on offer to support this position, but plenty of evidence that, faced with ineffective political lobbying by the computer industry which has failed to alert an apathetic public, the freedom to copy material for personal use will disappear without too many objections.
Did TiVo ever stand a chance? Time shifting functionality, like many conventional computer innovations, turns out to be a feature of an existing product rather than a horizontal industry in itself (PodCasters, please note), and time shifting is now being built into newer TV sets. Nor were cable providers ever really likely to give control of something as strategic as the UI - and TiVo's is warmly regarded as the best - to a third party.
The company has an alliance with NetFlix to serve VoD to broadband-equipped households, and there's plenty of scope for this alliance to prosper. It might rue that with more effective lobbying from the computer industry, or digital rights advocates, it might have made good on its initial promise[/q]
-
Thing is, the torrent sites have no say over this, it's down to the people ripping the programs. I always buy or rent movies, I don't bother downloading, because to spend 20+ hours downloading something that lasts only 2 has never appealed to me. I don't care if other people do it, the MPAA claim Piracy is pushing up DVD and other media prices. The truth of the matter is that Piracy is NOT pushing them up, what is pushing them up is (a) This ongoing battle against 'Pirates' which almost seems like the Inspiration for the 'War on Terror', (b)The fact the MPAA keep spending ****loads of my, and other consumers, money on hunting down sites which appear as quickly as they are taken down, and (c) Pure unadulterated greed. Media compaines produce generic movies and generic films for the main part. People lose interest in them in the end, this is why sales are dropping. Why is it that Lord of the Rings has been an immense success on DVD? Why is it everyone wants to buy an original copy rather than just download a version? Because it was a good movie and people knew they would get their money's worth from it.
The Pirates are neither spending or recieving ANY of my money, the MPAA and the associated record companies are, and they are always hungry for more.
Ask yourself this. If Piracy were somehow removed entirely from the Internet, so everyone had to buy retail versions of movies and TV programs, do you think that they would be a single penny cheaper?
-
I think the MPAA and RIAA, were they British (I don't think the BPAA are quite as bad - yet - but they're getting there), would actually make me feel guilty about buying legitimate CDs, DVDs, etc.
-
I wouldn't mind spending the money if I felt it was being put towards encouraging new and different talent and generally widening the Media experience for all involved, but it's either going directly into shareholders pockets or being wasted on pointless exercises such as this. I don't buy movies nearly as much as I used to, partly because of price, partly because there are s few good movies to choose from, and partly because the level of greed within giant industry has got so high that they barely even bother to conceal it any more.
-
Why would the MPAA be concerned with televised content?
-
(http://www.shuntv.net/ripshuntv.gif)
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Why would the MPAA be concerned with televised content?
Televised content has a lot to do with the MPAA, doesn't it? TV is being increasingly seen as a source of revenue for the motion picture business... especially the high-budget series that come out these days.
-
Unexpected this is and unfortunate.
-Yoda
I wasn't really expecting them to chase after tv torrent sites especially since they don't distribute DVDs or movies.
-
Can .avi or .mkv files have integral chapter divisions? If so, that's a reasonable compromise for everyone I think - leave the commercials in there, but allow them to be skipped by manual use of the "next chapter" button. After all, whenever the commercials come on when you're watching TV, do you just sit there through them? No, you either go get a snack, flip through the other channels, or completely ignore them and start talking with your fellow TV watchers.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Can .avi or .mkv files have integral chapter divisions? If so, that's a reasonable compromise for everyone I think - leave the commercials in there, but allow them to be skipped by manual use of the "next chapter" button. After all, whenever the commercials come on when you're watching TV, do you just sit there through them? No, you either go get a snack, flip through the other channels, or completely ignore them and start talking with your fellow TV watchers.
couldn't agree more on that...
looks like they are only concentrating on bringing these sites down.
if they start going after the registarnts that use these sites then they are really over their head.
-
aww shucks where am i going to get my andromeda and B5 episodes from ?
any ideas?
-
MKV can support that, since it's a pretty dynaimc container format. I think. Then again, the objection is that it's damned easy to reencode anything you want if you have the time and patience.
-
Noooo... my Family Guy episodes!
-
It ain't over till it's over boys. (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=xtvi&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)
-
Hurrah!
edit: wait no, I take that back... Family Guy isn't on their list. Gah.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4545519.stm
"Since we began shutting these sites down, the time that it takes to download a file on BitTorrent has increased exponentially which means the experience of downloading copyrighted films and TV shows is not what it used to be," said Mr Glickman.
"We intend to make it even worse. Protecting the television industry is essential."
-
LOL The experience of going to the cinema, or even of sitting down in front of a TV and expecting some kind of quality isn't what it used to be either. Do they plan to pour money and resources into fixing that?
-
I haven't experienced any problems or slow downs. Matter of fact, the more files are distributed with more people the faster it is as long as the trackers have enough bandwidth.
On a side note, they are protecting their own property rights which they have an absolute right to do.
-
They may have a right to do so, but they are going about it in completely the wrong fashion. They take the assumption 'We are the ultimate 'Right' and you are the ultimate 'wrong'' which is bull, they represent a group of companies that have been proved to be deliberately hiking up prices, and ignoring orders to stop since before piracy was moved to the fore as the reason why they are doing so. Piracy is merely being used an an excuse to be honest.
I don't deny their rights to the material, but if they'd stopped treating people like morons when they'd been asked to, this problem would not nearly be the problem that it is today. No-one has done more to make people aware the clients such as Bit-Torrent exist than the MPAA, you have to stop and ask yourself why.
-
I do not deny my own hatred of the MPAA. Both for ethical and business reasons. The MPAA and companies in general don't see the on demand market over the internet as a market. I don't download because I want to steal. I download using torrents for TV shows because I am a busy person that doesn't have time to watch TV when stuff comes on. But it is a market and a possibly profitable one. And the use of torrents and P2P technology would be a means to do it cheaply. However, because MPAA acts in a unethical manner it doesn't justify ones own breaking of the law or even as an excuse. This includes me as well. Every time I download a episode of the West Wing I break the law. Getting caught is a risk I am willing to take.
-
Things are gonna get worse before they get better, that's all I've got to say. Watch your backs! :nervous:
-
just because what you are doing is against the law does not mean it is bad.
-
In this case it is. I consider the respect of property rights to be necessary and just.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
just because what you are doing is against the law does not mean it is bad.
Bob hath spoken, and lo! his words flowed like a mighty river of truth.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
In this case it is. I consider the respect of property rights to be necessary and just.
Property? Only physical things can be called property.
-
Now just a minute...
-
How can you own an idea? Can you prove that no one had that idea before you? How can you honestly be sure that it is, in fact, unique?
-
Well in this case, it is an actual product, not a vague idea. But my rationale is that it's OK to steal from the extremely rich.
-
Not all the owners of companies represented by the MPAA are super rich. Shareholders come from all walks of life.
-
n/m
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Not all the owners of companies represented by the MPAA are super rich. Shareholders come from all walks of life.
Um... offhand, the MPAA board consists of 7 companies; Disney, MGM, Sony, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Universal Studios and Warner Bros; not exactly poor, struggling artists there.
Of course, the main thing I & most people would/should(?) dislike about the MPAA is that part of their legislative aim is to remove the protection that applies to people who record TV - i.e. on VCR, DVD or digital media.
I'm not an advocate of piracy; I think if you actually value something, you should buy it anyways. However, I think the MPAA and RIAA are effectively using the big bogeyman of digital piracy as an excuse for whenever profits dip; furthermore, you can't react to new technology by suppressing it - to do so is a disservice to everyone.
I sometimes suspect that the real reason the MPAA and RIAA clamp down on this sort of area is not because of money loss (how many people would pay the prices they ask?), but because free & frequent distribution of their product shows just how shoddy and overpriced it is. I think there have been numerous studies showing that people don't mind paying for CDs, etc, as long as they thing they're getting value for money; and certainly in the case of music, CD album sales continue to rise each year (but the BPAA - the UK equivalent of the RIAA - *****es because this is a result of prices often being lowered).
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Um... offhand, the MPAA board consists of 7 companies; Disney, MGM, Sony, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Universal Studios and Warner Bros; not exactly poor, struggling artists there.
Umm those companies are not super rich people. They are owned by shareholders. When one person steals from the company you also steal from the shareholder. These companies maybe powerful and have a great deal of cash on hand.
It all depends on how you look at things. As far as I can tell people choose to ignore the owners of corporation. I however, see things differently.
-
Sorry to bump this, but what the heck (http://www.btefnet.net/)??
-
Hmm, it seems they've gone and done a Napster. Maybe they reached some sort of deal with the TV networks to allow access for a price?
-
I have a moral/ethical/legal/commonsense question. Seeing as some shows, such as Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis aren't always shown up here...sometimes until a year or several years later. So...if I downloaded a stream of a TV show...that isn't going to be shown or hasn't been shown or will not be shown for a considerable time...are the companies actually loosing any money because of that? They aren't getting my money either way...so the net gain and the net loss is 0. I can't support or not support the product...its an odd issue. But I think this debate is pretty much limited to the U.S. and maybe Britian but I'm not so sure about that either....the public service broadcaster turns that whole thing on its head anyways.
And here we're still arguing over Canadian content percentages :D
-
Well, Ice, let's turn that argument on its ear; I don't even have a TV, so I never watch TV. Therefore, my downloading of Star Trek, BSG, Lost, 24, etc, is not helping me avoid the commercials, since I wouldn't see those shows at all if I didn't download them.
However, I could spend waste the money to buy a TV set (and pay the yearly TV tax they have here - not bloody likely!), but that's not something that should be taken into their calculations.
Additionally, my adoration of such shows as the remade Battlestar Galactica - which I can only see by downloading - is fairly likely to bring me to actually purchase the DVDs when they come out. :)
Ergo, in my case, my downloading TV shows is actually profitable for the... uhm... well, for whoever gets the money from DVD sales (networks? Producers? Intellectual Property owners?). ;)
-
Originally posted by IceFire
I have a moral/ethical/legal/commonsense question. Seeing as some shows, such as Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis aren't always shown up here...sometimes until a year or several years later. So...if I downloaded a stream of a TV show...that isn't going to be shown or hasn't been shown or will not be shown for a considerable time...are the companies actually loosing any money because of that? They aren't getting my money either way...so the net gain and the net loss is 0. I can't support or not support the product...its an odd issue. But I think this debate is pretty much limited to the U.S. and maybe Britian but I'm not so sure about that either....the public service broadcaster turns that whole thing on its head anyways.
And here we're still arguing over Canadian content percentages :D
Also, another arguement; I'm in the uk and pay a standard TV license fee for the right to watch TV (said fee subsidises the BBC channels). If I was to download Dr Who, what would be wrong with that given that I already pay a fee for watching it, and that the only logical difference is the timing of when I watch it.
Or what if i record a TV show onto my hard drive; is that protected in the same way as if I record on VCR? On the issue of sharing - is it illegal to allow someone to borrow a video and copy it?
(almost) Finally, would this be a problem if advertisers could add unskippable adverts - ala every show on the telly - to the files as ad breaks? And on the same note, if I were to skip these adverts, would that be illegal, given that AFAIK it's not illegal to either a) flick to another channel when the ad break is on a normal TV stream or b)fast forward past them on a video?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well in this case, it is an actual product, not a vague idea. But my rationale is that it's OK to steal from the extremely rich.
Wait, why?
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Property? Only physical things can be called property.
Jack woke up one morning and decided that he would now make his first studio record. Jack the proceeded to the store and bought necessary equipment. He had to sell his kidney for that, but Jack was a true artist. He then used this to make a record. He had invested several thousand pounds on creating the music. Jack also has to live and so on.
Then some ****ass comes out of nowhere and claims that this music is worthless because it has no physical form.
-
Originally posted by Janos
Wait, why?
a) that is months old and b) cause I said so.
In theory, private property is either sacred or nonexistant. A beggar and a billionare are theoretically equal in their right to own property. But in reality, the disparity allows for moral wiggle-room. If I steal something, and as a result of that the person who put his blood and sweat into creating that product or service doesn't get dinner, I'm a prick. But if I steal something, and as a result of that a worthless middleman is unable to buy another Ferrarri, I'm still technically wrong, but not wrong wrong.
In some cases, P2P filesharing results in the former, which I personally try to minimize, and sometimes it results in the latter, in which case I don't really care.
-
You probably wouldn't pay for anything in either case if there were a quick and easy way to get it for free thus your opinion is irrelevent.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
a) that is months old and b) cause I said so.
In theory, private property is either sacred or nonexistant. A beggar and a billionare are theoretically equal in their right to own property. But in reality, the disparity allows for moral wiggle-room. If I steal something, and as a result of that the person who put his blood and sweat into creating that product or service doesn't get dinner, I'm a prick. But if I steal something, and as a result of that a worthless middleman is unable to buy another Ferrarri, I'm still technically wrong, but not wrong wrong.
In some cases, P2P filesharing results in the former, which I personally try to minimize, and sometimes it results in the latter, in which case I don't really care.
Can I steal your camera, because you don't really need it and I need one.
-
If I'm a billionare, sure. Like I said, it's a moral grey area.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
If I'm a billionare, sure. Like I said, it's a moral grey area.
But if you bought it, wouldn't you want to have complete (well, almost) control over it, since you have earned it with your hard work?
Oh god, I sound like a libertarian soon. :(
-
Of course, the theft analogy only works for P2P downloading if you assume the person downloading would otherwise have bought it.
-
Two words: civil disobedience.
If we all shamelessly downloaded and blatantly called attention to ourselves without fear, the entertainment industry would have two choices: either give in or start a full scale legal war with the odds greatly against them. They can't take everyone to court. You can't get blood from a stone. The only problem is, a few will have to take the fall at first, and I don't see anyone willing to sacrifice what they have for the cause. Also, the industry probably sees it along the lines of negotiating with terrorists. As long as we cower in fear, the industry will rule with an iron fist. Right now, no one can claim the upper hand in this war of attrition, but that could quickly change, in favor of either side.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Of course, the theft analogy only works for P2P downloading if you assume the person downloading would otherwise have bought it.
The P2P networks is a double-edged sword.
Some people use it to find new music, and then buy what they are interested in.
Some people just grab all of their music from the INTERWEBS, because they don't want to pay for it.
Some, maybe a good deal even, is balancing between the two. Personally I use networks to find new music (example: I had never even heard of a group called "Architecture in Helsinki" before the glory times of BitTorrent. I just ordered their latest release.) Also, I often use downloaded music as some kind of guide; if the music sounds interesting I buy a record, if it doesn't kick in, I just leave it. Quite a few music lovers I know use this way. I spend a ****load of cash per month for new records, so maybe my comments are a bit biased though. ;)
Seriously though, just for the sake of both music makers and those of use who like music I hope the music industry can find some good way to sell both individual songs and full albums on some medium which cuts on the prizes. Come on, 20e for a new album? ****. That. Noise. [iTunes lol]
Also, what the ****:
"Oh we're losing profits, even though we're actually hitting all-time high as we speak, but we could do BETTER if the governmental agencies become the tool for our own market interests! Oh yeah free market and all that jazz, but hell it's a one way ticket I mean companies really should bug legislation and juridicary with complaints of losing market grounds to new and superior media. What? Our marketing is obsolete and we try to sell stupid ****? For high price? Of course, and you should protect us and trump superior systems because you're the government! We live in Bizarrolandia!"
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
Two words: civil disobedience.
If we all shamelessly downloaded and blatantly called attention to ourselves without fear, the entertainment industry would have two choices: either give in or start a full scale legal war with the odds greatly against them. They can't take everyone to court. You can't get blood from a stone. The only problem is, a few will have to take the fall at first, and I don't see anyone willing to sacrifice what they have for the cause. Also, the industry probably sees it along the lines of negotiating with terrorists. As long as we cower in fear, the industry will rule with an iron fist. Right now, no one can claim the upper hand in this war of attrition, but that could quickly change, in favor of either side.
Well, the populace forms 100% of their market audience, so we might have something to say. You can only alienate your target segment so far.
-
[color=66ff00]I have only bought two 'new' things in the last year that I didn't verify the quality of beforehand by downloading or borrowing a copy. This includes Spaced, Firefly, the BSG pilot, the new U2 album
When I get some cash together I'll be buying the new Dr. Who series, BSG, Cowboy Bebop, Clone wars and a few CD's that did not consist of two good tunes and a bunch of filler.
It's no different from borrowing from a library or video store except it's much more accessable for me. I used to pirate Metallica albums and a few other things on principle but I think they have taken the hint that they can never control how their music/media is copied.
In a relatively short while a new type of p2p program will come out that makes it immensly hard to identify sharers. This is not idle speculation; this is how things are going to be.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Janos
Well, the populace forms 100% of their market audience, so we might have something to say. You can only alienate your target segment so far.
That's what I was getting at.
-
The biggest problem with the industry is that they have encountered a new technology that they don't understand. They are afraid of it and so they are trying to destroy it.
Besides, all I need to do is go rent a newly released DVD from a video rental place for one or two dollars, go home, run a few programs on it to decrypt and encode it, and voila I have my pirated movie.