RoTS Piracy leads to EliteTorrents.org Shutdown

[Darth Fanboy]

In other words, your gratification isn't instant ... conceded. I don't find that a compelling argument in support of illegal taking.

Its not instant or its nonexistant. The majority of FM radio stations are crap and unless you want Mainstream or "Oldies" then you're going to have a tough time finding a station. If you're in the larger cities you get a wider selection of crap to choose from.

Hate to break it to you -- most wine is bought at the supermarket, not Chez Paul's. You choose based on word of mouth, something you read, or because you have always liked wines from that winery .... in other words, about the same way most people buy music. Specialty shops that let you taste are pretty much the same thing as going to a record store with listening-stations that let you listen before buying ... I have no problem with either one.

I'm not most people, I like to make my own deicisons. I also like hearing new songs from firends. "Say you should listen to this track..." And these record stores with the listneing stations, you arent able to hear the entirety of the song, or in a lot of cases you dont even get to pick which song(s) you listen to.

Exactlly how most consumer purchases work. Shop carefully.

No better way to shop carefully than to know what exactly it is you are purchasing before you buy it.

[Durandal]

The industry needs to look to a new way of handling how movies are distributed. I walked out of ROTS and said "I want this fucking movie NOW." My friend suggested we hit Chinatown and so we did.

If I were a movie industry guy I'd adopt the Apple iTunes model and movies ready to download as soon as they're released in theatres. It would not be DVD quality since that would cut into DVD sales, but for approximately the cost of a movie ticket you can download a watchable copy of the movie.

Steve Jobs has recently alluded that there might indeed be a movie store in Apple's future. Someone asked him and he said something to the effect of, "I'll let our future actions answer that question." I would love for Apple to start selling 720p h.264 encodes of movies out in theatres, even if it'd take me a day or so to download them.

[Chmee]

In other words, your gratification isn't instant ... conceded. I don't find that a compelling argument in support of illegal taking.

Its not instant or its nonexistant. The majority of FM radio stations are crap and unless you want Mainstream or "Oldies" then you're going to have a tough time finding a station. If you're in the larger cities you get a wider selection of crap to choose from.

Streaming audio, you're ignoring that because it undermines your argument. Thousands of stations & formats you can reach with the broadband you'd like to illegally take with. You might have to listen for ... *gasp* ... HOURS to hear the track you're interested in.

Hate to break it to you -- most wine is bought at the supermarket, not Chez Paul's. You choose based on word of mouth, something you read, or because you have always liked wines from that winery .... in other words, about the same way most people buy music. Specialty shops that let you taste are pretty much the same thing as going to a record store with listening-stations that let you listen before buying ... I have no problem with either one.

I'm not most people, I like to make my own deicisons. I also like hearing new songs from firends. "Say you should listen to this track..." And these record stores with the listneing stations, you arent able to hear the entirety of the song, or in a lot of cases you dont even get to pick which song(s) you listen to.

Different stores than I'm seeing, then, because they let you listen to the whole CD ... every CD available? No ... again, not all gratification will be instant, get used to that.

Exactlly how most consumer purchases work. Shop carefully.

No better way to shop carefully than to know what exactly it is you are purchasing before you buy it.

Well, bad news, they're usually not going to let you taste the $200 a jar caviar before you buy. I understand the desire for an ideal consumer world, but it's not a rationale for illegal taking for me. A secure system where you download a 1-listen-only self-destroying track that couldn't be copied, that'd be great -- go invent it. The lack of that is not sufficient reason to allow millions of perfect digital duplicates to impair the market for an artist's work.

[Beowulf]

720p is higher than DVD quality Durandal. DVDs have 720x480 resolution as opposed to the 1280x720 resolution that you want. Oh, and that amount of data would probably cause my ISP to shit a brick.

[Petrosjko]

Streaming audio, you're ignoring that because it undermines your argument. Thousands of stations & formats you can reach with the broadband you'd like to illegally take with. You might have to listen for ... *gasp* ... HOURS to hear the track you're interested in.

And I have hours to wade through crap to listen to the track I want to?

Different stores than I'm seeing, then, because they let you listen to the whole CD ... every CD available? No ... again, not all gratification will be instant, get used to that.

They have the technology to make a full music database available. The impediment is largely rooted in the fact that the music industry still likes to lard albums down with a bunch of crap filler sandwiched around a couple of decent tracks.

Well, bad news, they're usually not going to let you taste the $200 a jar caviar before you buy. I understand the desire for an ideal consumer world, but it's not a rationale for illegal taking for me. A secure system where you download a 1-listen-only self-destroying track that couldn't be copied, that'd be great -- go invent it. The lack of that is not sufficient reason to allow millions of perfect digital duplicates to impair the market for an artist's work.

Until they adjust their market model to account for present realities, they're going to continue to get fucked over. Simple as that.

The recording industry is hanging on to an obsolete model by which they have managed to simultaneously screw the artists and the consumers. The artists make jack-all on album sales and have to tour to pull in the cash, while the delivery medium (compact discs) are hideously overpriced. Rather than adjusting to the fact that modern technology renders their old methodology useless, they're fighting tooth and nail to hold on. Music is undergoing an economic revaluation right now, whether they like it or not. The only way they can deal with this is to accept what the market has done and offer an economical solution.

I have no sympathy for the bastards.

[Chmee]

Streaming audio, you're ignoring that because it undermines your argument. Thousands of stations & formats you can reach with the broadband you'd like to illegally take with. You might have to listen for ... *gasp* ... HOURS to hear the track you're interested in.

And I have hours to wade through crap to listen to the track I want to?

Nobody said you *had* to do anything, and frankly if you put in the time to find the right streaming radio station, it's not going to be crap, it's going to be stuff you enjoy listening to.

Different stores than I'm seeing, then, because they let you listen to the whole CD ... every CD available? No ... again, not all gratification will be instant, get used to that.

They have the technology to make a full music database available. The impediment is largely rooted in the fact that the music industry still likes to lard albums down with a bunch of crap filler sandwiched around a couple of decent tracks.

Since all the online purchasing options now available let you purchase single tracks, this isn't even a relevant objection today.

Well, bad news, they're usually not going to let you taste the $200 a jar caviar before you buy. I understand the desire for an ideal consumer world, but it's not a rationale for illegal taking for me. A secure system where you download a 1-listen-only self-destroying track that couldn't be copied, that'd be great -- go invent it. The lack of that is not sufficient reason to allow millions of perfect digital duplicates to impair the market for an artist's work.

Until they adjust their market model to account for present realities, they're going to continue to get fucked over. Simple as that.

The recording industry is hanging on to an obsolete model by which they have managed to simultaneously screw the artists and the consumers. The artists make jack-all on album sales and have to tour to pull in the cash, while the delivery medium (compact discs) are hideously overpriced. Rather than adjusting to the fact that modern technology renders their old methodology useless, they're fighting tooth and nail to hold on. Music is undergoing an economic revaluation right now, whether they like it or not. The only way they can deal with this is to accept what the market has done and offer an economical solution.

I have no sympathy for the bastards.

Nor do I ... but I don't set my personal behavioral standards based on the morality (or lack of it) held by others. I don't take things that aren't mine, even if they are owned by bastards. The market has reacted strongly to this pressure over the last two years, saying it hasn't is just putting your head in the sand and saying you don't want to change your behavior because illegal taking is easier (ok, cheaper) than paying. I just don't find that to be personally satisfying.

The solution to a product being overpriced is NOT BUYING IT ... not taking it illegally. At least for me. So I do without that Ferrari for now.

[Durandal]

720p is higher than DVD quality Durandal. DVDs have 720x480 resolution as opposed to the 1280x720 resolution that you want. Oh, and that amount of data would probably cause my ISP to shit a brick.

I realize that. I could've asked for 1080p.

[Durandal]

If you want an ethically clean slate, only pirate things made before 1988. The original copyright laws drawn up by the Framers expired copyright 17 years after creation. Now, thanks to Disney's whining about Mickey Mouse, it's 80 years after the artist's death.

I don't consider myself ethically bound by a law that some gigantic corporation bought for itself so that it didn't have to be creative anymore.

[Chmee]

If you want an ethically clean slate, only pirate things made before 1988. The original copyright laws drawn up by the Framers expired copyright 17 years after creation. Now, thanks to Disney's whining about Mickey Mouse, it's 80 years after the artist's death.

I don't consider myself ethically bound by a law that some gigantic corporation bought for itself so that it didn't have to be creative anymore.

Well, although I like the aspect of this philosophy that lets me smoke pot and snort coke because it used to be legal in this country, it does still have a faint odor of rationalizing self-justification to it ...... and snorting coke makes you an asshole anyway.

[Durandal]

If you want an ethically clean slate, only pirate things made before 1988. The original copyright laws drawn up by the Framers expired copyright 17 years after creation. Now, thanks to Disney's whining about Mickey Mouse, it's 80 years after the artist's death.

I don't consider myself ethically bound by a law that some gigantic corporation bought for itself so that it didn't have to be creative anymore.

Well, although I like the aspect of this philosophy that lets me smoke pot and snort coke because it used to be legal in this country, it does still have a faint odor of rationalizing self-justification to it ...... and snorting coke makes you an asshole anyway.

It's not strictly a matter of "used to be legal." It's a matter of the fact that the law was changed for no good reason whatsoever.

[Chmee]

If you want an ethically clean slate, only pirate things made before 1988. The original copyright laws drawn up by the Framers expired copyright 17 years after creation. Now, thanks to Disney's whining about Mickey Mouse, it's 80 years after the artist's death.

I don't consider myself ethically bound by a law that some gigantic corporation bought for itself so that it didn't have to be creative anymore.

Well, although I like the aspect of this philosophy that lets me smoke pot and snort coke because it used to be legal in this country, it does still have a faint odor of rationalizing self-justification to it ...... and snorting coke makes you an asshole anyway.

It's not strictly a matter of "used to be legal." It's a matter of the fact that the law was changed for no good reason whatsoever.

I can't say that I religiously follow every law that our legislatures take it into their heads to pass ... nor do I think that in a democracy everybody gets a free pass on the laws that they feel are based on 'no good reason' ... obviously a lot of fundies feel that way about the supreme law of the land as embodied in the Establishment Clause.

[Molyneux]

Well, although I like the aspect of this philosophy that lets me smoke pot and snort coke because it used to be legal in this country, it does still have a faint odor of rationalizing self-justification to it ...... and snorting coke makes you an asshole anyway.

It's not strictly a matter of "used to be legal." It's a matter of the fact that the law was changed for no good reason whatsoever.

I can't say that I religiously follow every law that our legislatures take it into their heads to pass ... nor do I think that in a democracy everybody gets a free pass on the laws that they feel are based on 'no good reason' ... obviously a lot of fundies feel that way about the supreme law of the land as embodied in the Establishment Clause.

On the other hand, if you truly do believe a law to be unjust and indefensible, it is your duty as a concerned citizen to a) protest that law, and b) violate it. Civil disobedience all the way.

[Chmee]

On the other hand, if you truly do believe a law to be unjust and indefensible, it is your duty as a concerned citizen to a) protest that law, and b) violate it. Civil disobedience all the way.

I don't think there are many 'unjust' intellectual property laws, file-sharers are never going to be up there with Rosa Parks in my book ... your duty in a democracy is to work through your elected representatives for change. Violate if you must, but be prepared to pay the legal consequences without complaint.

[Darth Fanboy]

Streaming audio, you're ignoring that because it undermines your argument. Thousands of stations & formats you can reach with the broadband you'd like to illegally take with. You might have to listen for ... *gasp* ... HOURS to hear the track you're interested in.

I already said in a previous reply that Streaming AUdio doesn't offer me specific content the way file sharing does. As for waiting hours to listen to one track, well fuck that. I don't like standing in line for hours for a five minute ride at a theme park I sure as hell won't sit and stream audio until I find the 3 or 4 minute track I want. Between what I do during the day for school/work and the 6-8 hours of sleep I like to get, do I really want to spend all my free time waiting for one song?

Different stores than I'm seeing, then, because they let you listen to the whole CD ... every CD available? No ... again, not all gratification will be instant, get used to that.

The CDs that are made availiable? "Pop" or "Mainstream" garbage. I buy very little of that stuff.

Well, bad news, they're usually not going to let you taste the $200 a jar caviar before you buy. I understand the desire for an ideal consumer world, but it's not a rationale for illegal taking for me. A secure system where you download a 1-listen-only self-destroying track that couldn't be copied, that'd be great -- go invent it. The lack of that is not sufficient reason to allow millions of perfect digital duplicates to impair the market for an artist's work.

First I'd like to say that when it comes to an "artist's work" and CD sales the artist is seeing JACK SHIT of those CD profits. Secondly, most of these "artists" are mass producing songs to be filler tracks to accompany two maybe three semi-quality tracks. Thirdly, if the market is being impaired how come the Record Industry has been posting record profits over the last few years?

As for your Caviar argument, what say you and I take a $20,000 automobile for a test drive. Because the car dealerships do let you do that you know.

Now if the record companies want to keep developing p2p networks and have them be affordable (im looking into Napster) that's great if they can get a wide variety of music availiable trhough those. But in this economy instant gratification is what consumers want, and its not up to the business to tell its customers "Fuck you this is what you're gonna get" its up to them to conform and adapt. Something where record labels are failing miserably.

[Chmee]

Now if the record companies want to keep developing p2p networks and have them be affordable (im looking into Napster) that's great if they can get a wide variety of music availiable trhough those. But in this economy instant gratification is what consumers want, and its not up to the business to tell its customers "Fuck you this is what you're gonna get" its up to them to conform and adapt. Something where record labels are failing miserably.

We'll just have to disagree on this subjective analysis, because what I've seen in the last two years is a major adaptation to market forces. I've been using Rhapsody for 3-4 months and I've been pretty happy with what I get for a mere ten bucks a month.

I tend to believe that the age of the centralized media megacompanies is swiftly coming to an end, their chokehold on centralized distribution is disappearing. But no, I don't think that somehow the customer can say 'too expensive, I'm just taking it' in our economy, and I'm all in favor for slapping the people who take that approach ... hard. Prosecution of individual filesharers seems like an inefficient approach, if I were them I'd simply be seeding the P2P networks with useless garbage and nasty trojans until the networks are filled with nothing but recordings of Bjork singing Klingon opera.

[Darth Fanboy]

if I were them I'd simply be seeding the P2P networks with useless garbage and nasty trojans until the networks are filled with nothing but recordings of Bjork singing Klingon opera.

So you are against file sharing but for infecting other people's computers with computer viruses? You're sitting here talking about the rights of the companies but suddenly its ok to put a harmful trojan on someones machine? I mean the worthless files I can understand but intentionally corrupting someone's computer...

[Chmee]

if I were them I'd simply be seeding the P2P networks with useless garbage and nasty trojans until the networks are filled with nothing but recordings of Bjork singing Klingon opera.

So you are against file sharing but for infecting other people's computers with computer viruses? You're sitting here talking about the rights of the companies but suddenly its ok to put a harmful trojan on someones machine? I mean the worthless files I can understand but intentionally corrupting someone's computer...

It's a mousetrap ... I wouldn't *broadcast* an infected file to anybody, but if they come looking to illegally take something, I have no ethical problem with giving them a poison pill. As you sow, etc. etc.

And yeah, under current law that would be illegal ... I'd be sure to set up the mousetrap servers in the same offshore locations used to protect illegal filesharing datastores.

The goal would obviously be to create a *fear* of downloading from anyone whose identity you couldn't verify. Private, true peer-to-peer tradiing between trusted peers (you and your buddy trade songs) is such a minor economic annoyance compared to the anonymous distribution of hundreds of thousands of copies that it's not even worth pursuing. Personally I think if you're using a P2P system that doesn't (a) encrypt the data transfer and (b) require strong authentication of the other party's identity, you're just rolling the dice waiting for a file to come along and do some serious damage to you.

[General Zod]

It's a mousetrap ... I wouldn't *broadcast* an infected file to anybody, but if they come looking to illegally take something, I have no ethical problem with giving them a poison pill. As you sow, etc. etc.

And yeah, under current law that would be illegal ... I'd be sure to set up the mousetrap servers in the same offshore locations used to protect illegal filesharing datastores.

The goal would obviously be to create a *fear* of downloading from anyone whose identity you couldn't verify. Private, true peer-to-peer tradiing between trusted peers (you and your buddy trade songs) is such a minor economic annoyance compared to the anonymous distribution of hundreds of thousands of copies that it's not even worth pursuing. Personally I think if you're using a P2P system that doesn't (a) encrypt the data transfer and (b) require strong authentication of the other party's identity, you're just rolling the dice waiting for a file to come along and do some serious damage to you.

under most of the modern file sharing systems, such as bittorrent, the risk of downloading a trojan program or false file is relatively slim, as they carefully moderate who does what on their networks. IPs are visible to all, and as such it's difficult to upload a false file without getting an ass chewing, or outright ban from the site.

the only way that would work is on networks like kazaa and morpheus, which most people are slowly moving away from for those very reasons.

[Chmee]

It's a mousetrap ... I wouldn't *broadcast* an infected file to anybody, but if they come looking to illegally take something, I have no ethical problem with giving them a poison pill. As you sow, etc. etc.

And yeah, under current law that would be illegal ... I'd be sure to set up the mousetrap servers in the same offshore locations used to protect illegal filesharing datastores.

The goal would obviously be to create a *fear* of downloading from anyone whose identity you couldn't verify. Private, true peer-to-peer tradiing between trusted peers (you and your buddy trade songs) is such a minor economic annoyance compared to the anonymous distribution of hundreds of thousands of copies that it's not even worth pursuing. Personally I think if you're using a P2P system that doesn't (a) encrypt the data transfer and (b) require strong authentication of the other party's identity, you're just rolling the dice waiting for a file to come along and do some serious damage to you.

under most of the modern file sharing systems, such as bittorrent, the risk of downloading a trojan program or false file is relatively slim, as they carefully moderate who does what on their networks. IPs are visible to all, and as such it's difficult to upload a false file without getting an ass chewing, or outright ban from the site.

the only way that would work is on networks like kazaa and morpheus, which most people are slowly moving away from for those very reasons.

Systems that rely on central control & monitoring, however, are much easier for the mega-corps to take on in court, imposing liability on them for the illegal sharing that occurs on their networks. Control = responsibility, at least that's the lesson Napster got beaten into them the first time around. Kind of a Catch-22 there ... either you don't have enough knowledge of what's on the network to stop trojans, or you do, and then you're liable for not stopping infringement activity.

[General Zod]

Systems that rely on central control & monitoring, however, are much easier for the mega-corps to take on in court, imposing liability on them for the illegal sharing that occurs on their networks. Control = responsibility, at least that's the lesson Napster got beaten into them the first time around. Kind of a Catch-22 there ... either you don't have enough knowledge of what's on the network to stop trojans, or you do, and then you're liable for not stopping infringement activity.

however a good deal of the major servers are outside the US, in countries that permit file sharing or don't really do anything about it. so they can't really be touched by the courts for the most part. also, with bittorrent the files aren't hosted on any server. the tracker just keeps tabs of who's uploading what and how much gets sent. so nothing really goes through the tracker sites themselves except the .torrents, which still makes it relatively de centralized.

[Chmee]

however a good deal of the major servers are outside the US, in countries that permit file sharing or don't really do anything about it. so they can't really be touched by the courts for the most part. also, with bittorrent the files aren't hosted on any server. the tracker just keeps tabs of who's uploading what and how much gets sent. so nothing really goes through the tracker sites themselves except the .torrents, which still makes it relatively de centralized.

You can't count on many countries 'not really doing anything about it' in the long term ... the mega-corps that care about this crap aren't American, they're multinational, borders mean nothing to them. Look what just happened to BTEFNET and its cousins a couple weeks ago, that was just the first volley from the mega-corps against BT.

I'm aware of BT's general structure, and I wouldn't count on its security being that good in the long term either, anything that decentralized is susceptible to corruption by someone with a lot of resources, time, and motivation.

[General Zod]

I'm aware of BT's general structure, and I wouldn't count on its security being that good in the long term either, anything that decentralized is susceptible to corruption by someone with a lot of resources, time, and motivation.

so basically you're saying "someone with enough free time and resources might make it dangerous, so it -might- not be safe in the long run?" not much of an argument there.

[Chmee]

I'm aware of BT's general structure, and I wouldn't count on its security being that good in the long term either, anything that decentralized is susceptible to corruption by someone with a lot of resources, time, and motivation.

so basically you're saying "someone with enough free time and resources might make it dangerous, so it -might- not be safe in the long run?" not much of an argument there.

No, I'm saying you can't have it both ways. If it's tightly monitored and regulated, then it can be secure, but susceptible to regulatory control. If it's loosely monitored and decentralized, it's difficult to regulate but susceptible to malicious attack by people who know what they're doing. 'Nothing bad has happened yet' is not an indication that BT is secure ... it doesn't authenticate and it doesn't encrypt, so it doesn't even begin to meet a minimum level of security for me.

[McC]

Chmee, you're wrong on a number of fronts.

1) Copies of the movie released prior to its DVD release are always shittier than the DVD release. Period.

2) Copies of the movie released prior to its DVD release are typically the result of A) someone bringing a camera to the theater and filming it or B) someone (typically a theater staff member) does a telecine of the actual film reel directly to digital or C) someone gets a 'work print' of the movie (in-house people working on the movie, media people for reviewing purposes, etc.). In all cases, no actual theft is every involved.

3) Just about anyone who downloads a pirated movie does so because they A) did not see it in the theater when it was there, and it has not come out on DVD yet; B) wants to preview it for some reason before buying a DVD; C) doesn't really care about seeing it more than once (technically, they should go and rent the damn thing, if it's possible, but sometimes it isn't).

I guarantee you that a vast majority of those who avidly downloaded Revenge of the Sith A) also saw it in the theater at least once, if not multiple times and B) plan to buy the DVD when it comes out.

EDIT:

4) Anyone who downloads a DVD image of a movie to be burned to a DVD of their own is downloading a shittier copy of the movie than is available on the original DVD, particularly these days. Modern DVDs are dual-layered, and most burnable DVDs are single-layered, meaning that the DVD will never be more than 75% of the original source material (and that's assuming you get rid of most of the extras and such).

[Uraniun235]

Burnable dual-layer media does exist, although it's still very expensive.