Following up on Torrent Shutdowns 1166
dantheman82 and others have submitted a number of links about the recent closure of torrent mega sites like suprnova and torrentbits.
The
Unofficial Suprnova Closure FAQ comments that some torrent site maintainers have been arrested and that Suprnova was closed over fear of similiar fate.
DeHavilland notes that the finnish police raided an unnamed torrent site. There's a lot of scary things here, but to me what is most scary is that American copyright owners can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
numbers?? (Score:5, Interesting)
If BT was accounting for 35% of traffic, what's it at now? Still declining?
Listing substitute sites? Smart (Score:2, Interesting)
like it's going to help (Score:1, Interesting)
Do you think the MPAA really cares if you're still doing it?
I wasn't speeding when the cops pulled me over...
Finnish copyright holders (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt anyone was arrested in Finland for breaking solely US law. I am sure the Finnish police had a Finnish law to justify the arrests.
With their constant outsourcing (to AU & CN, to name two popular movie studio outsource winners), these "American copyright holders" don't seem too interested in actually doing the US any favours.
countries beyond jurisdiction? (Score:2, Interesting)
oh well. (Score:3, Interesting)
a legal puzzle (Score:2, Interesting)
Due Process (Score:2, Interesting)
Freenet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Freenet is probably too slow to recreate a site like Suprnova, but how about this. Instead of using Freenet to distribute each individual torrent, could you publish on Freenet a torrent that contains other torrents? For instance, a torrent for each category of files, like what was on Suprnova - a "Movies-Drama" torrent that contained a zipped file of all torrents in that category? This way, you wouldn't be relying on Freenet to distribute every torrent file, just a much smaller index of torrents.
If somebody wanted to take ownership of this, they could create a Freenet page with an anonymous feedback form. When somebody has a torrent to publish, they could submit the info to the anonymous form, and then the publisher would compile all the new torrents into the next version of the index.
Sound feasible?
Slippery Slope (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:unofficial? (Score:2, Interesting)
legal letters [thepiratebay.org]
Will they get a taste of their own medicine?
Scary Perspective (Score:1, Interesting)
> is most scary is that American copyright owners
> can mobilize foreign police to do their bidding.
Probably about as scary as being the copyright holder of original works being distributed globally for free against your wishes.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Shutting down a torrent sites which feature copyrighted movies and music annoys those who just want something for nothing. DRM hurts everybody, and especially every geek.
It is a given that the MPAA, RIAA, etc. are going to do SOMETHING. I would rather have them do this than add copy protection to every A/D converter made.
Re:Good. (Score:2, Interesting)
Posting some obscure file with
Saying otherwise will only bring ultimate doom of our society a little bit closer.
Re:Did anyone NOT expect this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:BooHoo (Score:3, Interesting)
But, you might also be forgetting that the majority of the traffic to these torrent sites is coming from the US, and one of the main reasons these sites are in other countries is to escape US copyright laws. IF these sites WHERE in developing nations and only catering to those developing nations, I wouldn't see much of a problem problem with that at all.
Re:numbers?? (Score:2, Interesting)
I see atleast 2 G less traffic than last week (but as said, this might be nothing).
Re:numbers?? (Score:1, Interesting)
It doesn't look like anything has slowed down. They have an OC3 by the way. (Small university ~2500 students)
Re:numbers?? (Score:3, Interesting)
A&M v. Napster (Score:3, Interesting)
under American law (yes the dreaded DMCA) suprnova was safe from lawsuits because it just acted like google as a clearing house for information and didn't actually run the trackers with infringing material.
Are you sure a judge wouldn't call it contributory infringement, relying on A&M v. Napster?
Re:Freenet? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Freenet? (Score:2, Interesting)
If you were a _real_ capitalist, you wouldn't be supporting government enforcement of "intellectual property" laws over the rights of people to do whatever they damn well feel like with their own real, private property.
Uh huh - a _real_ capitalist would just laugh at the pharma industry at not being able to compete.
Sounds like you're more of a fascist than a capitalist.
Re:Irony? (Score:2, Interesting)
Correct. And "copyright infringement" is "copyright infringement".
If you stole something from someone, then you stole it, you didn't "deprive them of a theoritical sale"
Also correct (except for the spelling). Whereas, if you copy something and leave them with the original, you haven't stolen it.
Torrent With Torrents, P2P Serving Torrents (Score:2, Interesting)
I was the turkey all along
Contributory Infringement (Score:3, Interesting)
Contributory infringement and vicarious liability are court-created theories (i.e., not specified in the Copyright Act) designed to hold a company liable for its participation in unlawful copying. The theory is analogous to the getaway driver in a robbery; everyone knows that the person who drives the getaway car will be in trouble, even if he does not rob the store. The imposition of secondary or indirect liability [1] is common throughout the law. Those who aid or abet the commission of wrongs, or who benefit from them, are frequently held liable.
Secondary liability is an especially important tool in copyright enforcement. Often, alleged contributory infringers may be in the best position to prevent or police violations. And suing many individual direct infringers may be impractical or expensive. However, secondary liability can create disincentives to innovation and entrepreneurship. Generally products have legitimate uses as well as infringing ones, and liability may inhibit firms from serving beneficial purposes. The Supreme Court's decision in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios limited the circumstances in which liability for contributory infringement may be imposed on a technology company simply because it provided a product that was used for infringement.
The copyright laws do not expressly provide for secondary liability for copyright infringement. But the courts, in a long series of cases, have imposed liability on those who facilitate or profit from copyright infringement. Thus there are two main strands of secondary liability for copyright infringement: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY
The standard definition for contributory copyright infringement is when the defendant, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another." [2] In other words, the record labels must not only show ownership of a valid copyright and unlawful copying but must show that the P2P company 1) had knowledge of the infringing activity and 2) materially contributed to the infringing conduct. Again, this is for the purpose of holding someone other than the infringer liable for copyright infringement.
VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY
Vicarious liability is another means of holding someone liable for copyright infringement even when that person or party is not the one who did the infringing. In order to find a defendant liable under the theory of vicarious liability for the actions of an infringer, it must be shown that the defendant 1) has the right and ability to control the infringer's acts, and 2) receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement.[3] Unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. However, courts have determined that the combination of the right and ability to control the infringer's acts and the receipt of a direct financial benefit from the infringement suffices to hold a defendant vicariously liable for copyright infringement, even if the defendant had no knowledge of the particular infringement.[4]
Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know anything about Finnish law, but it's a criminal matter if Finnish law says it is.
In the US, you are exposing yourself to civil *and* criminal penalties depending on the infringement.
Look, mommy, I can Google! Here's a page at the US DOJ about it [usdoj.gov].
Re:International Copyright Law (Score:2, Interesting)
Try telling that to the old Napster. There is such a thing as contributory infringement, you know.
Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me (Score:5, Interesting)
which made under finnish law, the copyright infrigment into copyright crime, since they were making money with piracy.
True that the money was spent on paying their expenses running the dedicated server abroad, but it was still income from distributing copyrighted material.
Point being you're not allowed to receive any income or donations from illegal material or byproducts of such, no matter what your expenses are while getting the material.
You're allowed to download such material under current fair use laws for personal use, as long there's no intention for profit.
The line of intention was crossed on this occasion because of the donate button.
Re:Not that scary (Score:3, Interesting)
If that's the best option for the people of that foreign nation... then fuck yes. Laws have to stop somewhere. You can lobby your government to put pressure on that foreign government to sign trade agreements prohibiting that kind of behavior. That would be making it no longer the best option for the people of that foreign nation.
Other nations should not be havens for those who engage in the theft of other people's property.
That's a troll line, and you know it. Irrelevant.
Would you argue against all extradition treaties as well?
I'd argue against a lot of them, sure. Should we sign an extradition treaty with Iran and ship them Salman Rushdie in a box?
The part you're missing... (Score:3, Interesting)
All the trade organizations are against world government because it would rival their own world-wide economic power. Want to dodge emissions standards? "Sorry, all global" Want to employ child labour? "Sorry, forbidden globally" Want to employ (wage) slave labour? "Sorry, minimum standards on worker's rights" The list goes on.
Yes, you have the problem of who watches the watchers. Since ultimately you have no "bigger" to watch over you, on top you place a system of checks and balances. This is nothing new and is essientially what exists at the top of every democratic organization, including national (USA) and supernational (EU) governments.
None of them work perfectly. But I don't see any reason why a world government should have to be worse at it. In fact, a world government would have a lot more power to actually raise standards without affecting competition. Take a look at how many proposals are rejected because it would put them at a disadvantage to the rest of the industry. A level playing field is a good one.
Kjella
Re:Not a balance of power issue. (Score:3, Interesting)
The various Ass.'s of America are stealing MY STUFF. They are using the law to starve the public domain.
Given the corporatist nature of the American government, voting won't make a difference. The only way to have even a marginal effect on their actions is to do whatever I can to kill (bankrupt) them. Giving away their lifeblood for free is pretty much the only way that we, as non-corporate entities, have to stop them from continuing to steal our stuff.
Re:Welcome to the new world order (Score:2, Interesting)
ANON.PENET.FI (Score:1, Interesting)
INTERPOL and the Finnish cops were more than happy to raid Julf when the cult snapped it's fingers.
hosting sites in friendly sovereign states (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet I can borrow 'The Life Aquatic' (once it's on DVD, that is) from a friend for no charge and it is perfectly legal and the same effect has been achieved (one person, who was not me, paid for access to IP which I then viewed for free).
Obviously the principle is not what scares MPAA/RIAA, because the principle cannot be reasonably argued against without constraining liberty. The problem is copies that do not generationally degrade, not the principle of sharing. At least, that was the *AA's stance in the 90s.
If you truly believe that the problem isn't generational degradation, but that information, once disseminated, should remain under the control of its originator, then from that principle you can posit a society where merely relating a remembrance of an IP work to another unauthorized individual (e.g. via casual chat) could be construed as piracy. If you think the problem is that digital media is 'too good' and lasts too long, you're in the buggy whip camp...
Re:What does mobilizing foreign police actually me (Score:3, Interesting)
1 - Did the vicitm actualy loose possession of the item in question? No, online piracy involves making a copy, not removing or destroying the origional. As a consequence, the copyright holder has not been deprived of any property.
2 - Did the victim loose some future benefit? While many would argue that piracy cuts into sales, the argument is flawed. Pirated copies are free. At zero cost demand can be assumed to be at its maximum. Maximum demand is well above equilibrium unless you're selling air. Further, authorized copies are typicaly at a higher bit rate and exhibit superior characteristics in nearly ever respect. As a consqeuence few if any sales of authorized copies will be lost to the inferior pirate copy.
3 - The ability to control the distribution of a peice of information is the primary purpose of copyright and the primary benefit lost when piracy occurs. As a consequence pirates are liable for the monitary value of this loss. The question then is what is the monitary value of this loss. Moreover, once piracy has occured once the copyright holder has lost the monopoly on this distribution chain. Further copies beyond the first do not do further damage to this monopoly. In this case we could perhaps ascribe blame and liability to the first individual to break the copyright monopoly for each individual work. Of course, determining exactly what civil and criminal penalties were in order would involve placing a dollar value, not on the distribution of the work, but on the difference between a monopoly as the state of nature.
As no real values exist for this descrepancy, appropriate penality seems impossible.
At present, however, we must deal with what the law says as opposed to what the law ought to say.
Re:Not that scary (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, yes. According to the Constitution you have no right to exclusively market your product except what we give you because we think that allowing you this TEMPORARY monopoly may help us in the long run.
Due do bribes by Disney and a couple other evil corporations, these exclusive rights are being abused to the point where they are no longer good for the average Citizen at all, and therefore they should be made illegal (according to the Constitution, anyway)
BitTorrent now a BitTrickle (Score:2, Interesting)
What about legit uses like getting Linux distros?
Re:Where do you draw the line? (Score:2, Interesting)
The self-centered argument that nobody is obliged to help anyone does not give you the right to actively assist in the creation of a humanitarian disaster.