Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Litigation Only Spurred On P2P File Sharing

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12, 2011 @07:39AM (#38033900)

    Most people would call you fools if you suggested that the mustard present in someone's refrigerator caused them to murder someone, though. Technically, that doesn't mean you're wrong, but it's something to think about.

  • by realityimpaired (1668397) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @08:12AM (#38034010)

    Because people lending (which is different to whats going on here) over "sneakernet" doesn't equate to tens of thousands of people having their own copy in only a few hours.

    *shrugs* it takes about 10 minutes for me to transfer an ISO to my hard drive, stripping the region coding as I do it, and then about 30 minutes to transcode that ISO into an MKV file that includes all of the soundtracks and subtitle information. If I'm not worried about the storage space, I can skip the second step. With a reasonably fast Internet connection, it *could* equate to tens of thousands of people having their own copy in only a few hours, and the main difference between what I'm doing and downloading it off the Internet is that instead of downloading it from a host that might actually be owned by the content holder, I'm creating my own digital copy of it. That I don't then upload it to the Internet is mostly because I can't be bothered to do so, because I don't really care about that side of things. I am digitizing movies so that I don't have to devote a large amount of shelf space to their storage, not because I believe the information wants to be free.

    You don't seriously think that the people doing the actual ripping/uploading (who are the people that the industry should *really* be going after) are *buying* dvd's, though, do you? All of the movies I rip, I own (physical copies and everything, just not kept in my living room), but most of the people who actually do the ripping/uploading are getting the movies from some form of sneakernet. Either they work at a video store and have physical access to the DVD before it's released, or they work in a theatre as a projectionist or something, and can rip the DVD while it's still in theatres, or they have a friend who does the above and gets the DVD for them. Most of them are not going to retail outlets and actually *buying* the DVD so that they can rip it.

  • by drakken33 (859280) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @08:56AM (#38034126)

    I don't want to sound picky but my local theatre doesn't use DVDs for it's digital content. It uses heavily DRM'd files supplied on a portable HDD or beamed in via satellite. The keys are sent separately as and when needed and expire in anything from a week or more. The files can be 200GB+. I'm not saying it's impossible to get a digital copy from a theatre but it's not easy.

  • RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Saturday November 12, 2011 @09:53AM (#38034304)

    The author is not saying anything about correlation. What the article says is that because the law shut down the conventional methods of file-sharing, it caused people to turn to producing many varieties of free file sharing software to get around the potential litigation. The ultimate result was a great increase in the ease and availability of file-sharing software. The exact opposite of what the people writing the law intended. This happened because of a variety of physical world assumptions legislators made that don't apply in the world of software.

    The end result? The mismatch between the law's physical world assumptions and the realities of the software world meant that the law created to respond to the challenges of P2P file sharing led to the opposite of the desired result: a massive increase in the availability of P2P file sharing software. The failure of the law to recognise the unique characteristics of software and software development meant the abandonment of the litigation campaign against P2P providers was only a matter of time.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12, 2011 @10:52AM (#38034540)

    Correlation is observing two things and noting the likelihood of them occurring together. Causation is experimental and is what is used for reasoning. F ex thing 1 happens, then thing 2 happens which wouldn't happen by itself. There is correlation between any 2 things in the universe except when it is actually the same event, as in perfect causation: If thing 1 happens, then thing 2 or vice versa. And it still would be proving causation since it doesn't tell which came first.

  • by Nihilomnis (2469528) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @12:55PM (#38035288)

    No, just no.

    "Pirated" copies do not use the original producers resources nor do they diminish them in ANY way.

    Economically (in respect to the original producing company), there is no difference between a person who does not buy and does not listen/watch/read/etc the media, and a person who obtains and "consumes" an unofficial copy.

    Technically even stealing a copy from Wal-mart wouldn't be stealing from the original producing company as the product has already changed hands and has been paid for.

    I'm not even going to get into the moral side of the argument because I am not informed enough to do so, but every time I hear or read of someone trying to say torrenting / downloading is stealing it makes me metaphorically want to punch a baby.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal [reference.com]
    First entry for steal:

    to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

    The watch in the example was indeed stolen; the owner had one less watch and the thief had one more. In the case of torrented or downloaded data the original producer does not lose a copy, but one who downloads gains a brand new copy created with the resources of whomever is seeding the torrent or hosting the download. IT IS NOT STEALING!

    Yes it is copyright infringement, but as that was not what you were saying the point is moot.

    Oh and after re-reading your post I found something, that I believe to be a mistake, that brings a great big smirk to my face. :)
    You:"It is equivalent to going into a music store and taking a copy off the racks and walking about without paying."
    Emphasis on "walking about"; it is not theft until you leave the store.

  • by Kjella (173770) on Saturday November 12, 2011 @01:21PM (#38035418) Homepage

    And individually watermarked and tamper-proofed, if it did happen they'll know exactly when and where. I've never heard of anyone actually getting a raw 4k rip from these things, if they did I'm sure it'd come to halt very soon. Besides, almost nobody can watch it - I guess the people with 30" displays could get 1440p but 4k televisions and projectors practically don't exist. With the price of 4k equipment you might as well license yourself as a cinema too, won't be that much more expensive. Size would be an issue too, I think for the last of the LotR movies it was 900GB, not sure about that. They're going out practically uncompressed, no artifacting there.

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.

Working...