Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BTJunkie No More?

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the so-long-farewell-aufwiedersehn-goodbye dept.

Piracy 328

First time accepted submitter AWESOM-O 4k writes "It seems like the popular file sharing site BTJunkie.org is gone. On btjunkie.org you are greeted with the following: '2005 — 2012 This is the end of the line my friends. The decision does not come easy, but we've decided to voluntarily shut down. We've been fighting for years for your right to communicate, but it's time to move on. It's been an experience of a lifetime, we wish you all the best! '"

cancel ×

328 comments

who? (2, Informative)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938929)

n/t

Re:who? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939031)

Right to "communicate". Is that like right to "surprise sex"?

Re:who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939293)

No, more like a right to an oligarchy and 400% ROI.

Re:who? (5, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939487)

It's like your right to equate assisting in copyright infringement to rape, yet not be sued and banned from the internet.

Your right to what? (4, Insightful)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938931)

Communicate. Yes. That's what it was used for.

Re:Your right to what? (5, Insightful)

spikestabber (644578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938943)

Unlocking of our excessively locked up culture perhaps?

Re:Your right to what? (4, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939015)

Something you can buy for little money from many different stores doesn't exactly count as being locked up.

Re:Your right to what? (4, Informative)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939051)

It's a very high price compared to cost of distribution, and copyright has gone far beyond the scope required for it's nominal purpose of promoting literary progress. Also, there are lots of things that are out of print, but copyright still covers that.

Re:Your right to what? (4, Interesting)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939097)

It's a very high price compared to cost of distribution, and copyright has gone far beyond the scope required for it's nominal purpose of promoting literary progress. Also, there are lots of things that are out of print, but copyright still covers that.

I don't know about cost - if you have a monopoly on a unique work (regardless of how that monopoly is secured), then you have a right to charge whatever you want. I agree with you that copyright has gone too far in favor of corporate rights with excessively long time periods and too unbalanced in policy. But I also think you would have difficulty defending BTJunkie as a place to find "out of print" copyrighted works.

Re:Your right to what? (5, Interesting)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939425)

I don't know about cost - if you have a monopoly on a unique work (regardless of how that monopoly is secured), then you have a right to charge whatever you want.

Given that it flies in the face of the intended purpose of copyright, it's an issue that should be addressed. The people aren't obligated to offer copyright at all, the Constitution merely permits it, and then only for the promotion of science and useful arts.

Re:Your right to what? (5, Insightful)

spikestabber (644578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939109)

Theres way too much out of print stuff that you cannot find legally unless you're lucky enough to track it down used....
I would say at least HALF of the original NES library of games are like this as a quick example....
And for arcade game PCB's, then that number is off the charts....
Most of our past culture would be inaccessible if it weren't for the internet.

Re:Your right to what? (3, Interesting)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939241)

NES? Heh, try stuff even as recent as the Playstation. Good luck finding one of the (seemingly) dozen copies of Suikoden II they seemed to press for the entire North American continent...

Re:Your right to what? (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939347)

>Also, there are lots of things that are out of print, but copyright still covers that.

This is what the real problem is with current copyright law. Stuff that would go to the public domain is simply locked up, never to be seen again.

There is no balance anymore between the right to culture and the right to earn a living. The right to culture has been obliterated. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that yes, Congress *can* pass copyright laws that rip culture out of the public domain.

The powers that be are now stealing from the public, far more so than they are losing to "piracy."

--
BMO

Re:Your right to what? (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939131)

Except you can't use "I have a dream" or "Ask not what your country can do for you" in a video without cutting a big fat check. PBS had a great special years ago on the civil rights movement...yet you can't see it, why? because its all behind paywalls now. This isn't just about the latest titney spears pop song you know, this is about media cartels locking the entire history of modern society behind paywalls. Nearly every spoken word of any note is now behind a paywall and all for Walt Disney, a man whose been dead longer than many of us have been alive, so that his first works which were made when planes were made from cloth and antibiotics were but a dream, all so his works can stay behind a paywall.

You want something to have one of those petitions for on the White House website? demand an end to the sonny Bono act, and demand that copyrights take sane terms again. watch how quickly our media shill of a POTUS tells you to go fuck yourself, he knows whose paying his salary and it AIN'T you. It is time we really start voting third parties across the board, its obvious to anyone with eyes that the two party system is simply no longer functional. We frankly need four five and six parties but lets start with three and work from there. I urge everyone to vote green across the board, they have already made gains in many states, lets give the shills a reason to fear for their jobs again!

Re:Your right to what? (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939335)

Actually, you can't buy it if it's in "the Disney vault" where they use copyright to accomplish nearly the opposite of it's intended function. Especially for works now out of corporate favor.

Many other works are similarly locked up where they're out of print but still under copyright. In some cases nobody is really sure who to contact even if interested.

Re:Your right to what? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939127)

Bittorrent is fine, sharing files with your friends is fine, but I'm somehow saddened that slashdot will defend those who profit from it. It's no longer an altruistic activity when someone is making 6-figures a month in banner ads. Honestly.

These jokers just got out before they got busted, something Megaupload should have likely done with their 8-figure revenue some time ago...

Re:Your right to what? (2, Insightful)

mattventura (1408229) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938947)

Sending information to other people isn't communication?

Re:Your right to what? (2, Insightful)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939055)

A typically pedantic response from a typical pedant with no coherent argument for why copyright material should be shared to millions of other people without the copyright holder's consent.

Re:Your right to what? (3, Insightful)

mattventura (1408229) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939139)

A typical strawman respone from someone with no actual argument. Copyright is an artificial construct whereas communication is human nature.

Re:Your right to what? (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939199)

Communication (which is to say, unidirectional data transfer from a non-human entity via a billion-dollar computer network) is human nature!

Re:Your right to what? (5, Informative)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939443)

Yes. It is also human nature to invent things to facilitate our nature. Thus, as a communicative species we invented the telegraph, radio, television, the telephone, and the internet to facilitate our communicative nature.

Re:Your right to what? (2)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939471)

Yes, it is. And you're confusing the message with the medium.

Re:Your right to what? (2)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939313)

So I don't get your point. Is that artificial constructs are bad and everything natural is good? Clothes are also an artifical construct. Do you wear clothes? Laws, language, money, social mores and on an on are all artificial constructs. The computer you used to post your comment is built on all sorts of artifical constructs. There are very few people who would consider downloading movies from a giant server to be a good example of human communication. I feel sorry for you if you feel that doing so satisfies your needs for human communication.

Re:Your right to what? (4, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938987)

Communicate. Yes. That's what it was used for.

When what you're doing is illegal, people are often tempted to cloak it in idealistic terms, i.e. "music wants to be free".

Note: yes, I know that torrents in and of themselves are useful and not illegal. But come on. We know what the vast majority of stuff that places like BT Junkie link to, and it's not Linux ISO's. It's mainly copyright material.

Re:Your right to what? (4, Interesting)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939025)

We also know that in the absence of said torrents, people won't start fishing out thousands and thousands of dollars for that software / movie / music - they'll simply not use it at all.

Re:Your right to what? (1, Interesting)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939087)

Yeah. I think this is wrong. Imagine a magical world where it is literally impossible to get a digital copy of a song or movie without paying for it. You think all these kids with ginormous music collections would go without all their tunes? No. They'd purchase some of it. Now it's certainly reasonable to argue that such a world will never exist, but that's not the same as saying, "If people couldn't get it for free they'd just go without."

Re:Your right to what? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939099)

You seem to think they don't already purchase some of it.

I guess they don't, and that means Justin Bieber and the music industry must be robbing banks - where else would they get all their money since nobody's paying them?

Re:Your right to what? (1, Interesting)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939121)

Where did I say nobody was purchasing content? That's idiotic. My experience with heavy torrent users, though, is that they legitimately purchase very little of the media they consume. They might buy a few songs on iTunes, but you won't catch them buying DVDs or CDs (or renting them, or streaming them).

Re:Your right to what? (5, Insightful)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939311)

Your experience doesn't mesh with reality. Heavy P2P users have been found to pay for more legal content than the average person in multiple [arstechnica.com] studies [arstechnica.com] .

Re:Your right to what? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939383)

You think all these kids with ginormous music collections would go without all their tunes?

Depends on the person. I'd bet there are quite a few people who wouldn't pay a cent. And it's not always just because they want to save money. Sometimes they simply don't have the money to begin with.

Re:Your right to what? (2)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939027)

Sharing copyrighted material is not illegal or immoral. Linux and Wikipedia are both copyrighted. If something is not copyrighted, it's public domain. Just because you have permission to distribute something doesn't mean that the author has renounced copyright.

Re:Your right to what? (0)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939045)

And according to MS, Linux violates its patents to I guess torrents are actually 100% copyrighted material.

Re:Your right to what? (2)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939163)

Patent Violation is not copyright violation. Patent FUD, even less so.

Re:Your right to what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939173)

This is where you would normally get told about the difference between patents and copyright. However, I'll leave it to you to educate yourself. Looking at your other posts, it's pretty clear you will continue to speak loudly about things you know nothing about. Example: "So P=NP, since N is always equivalent to 1 in quantum computing." Ignorance on so many levels with that one.

Re:Your right to what? (3, Insightful)

X.25 (255792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939053)

When what you're doing is illegal, people are often tempted to cloak it in idealistic terms, i.e. "music wants to be free".

Yet, 99% of people will see murder as illegal.

And file sharing of copyrighted material (unlimited good, basically) as legal.

Do you think people will change their opinion on what is legal/illegal, just because some corrupted cronies pushed the law through?

Re:Your right to what? (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939391)

Well, if it's illegal in their country, and they think it's legal, then they would indeed be wrong about that. But whether it's "immoral" or not is a completely different matter.

Re:Your right to what? (4, Insightful)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939105)

We know what the vast majority of stuff that places like BT Junkie link to, and it's not Linux ISO's. It's mainly copyright material.

Same for Google.

BTJunkie was nothing more than a search engine with a comment and results rating system (not unlike ./). It hosted no torrent files and was not a torrent tracker. You could get almost the same results by entering your query into Google and appending "torrent".

So, what, exactly, makes a site like BTJunkie "illegal" while Google doing the same thing is OK?

Re:Your right to what? (4, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939299)

Why do you think Google is in hot water with Congress and the MPAA/RIAA? It's precisely because of this. Make no mistake: RIAA and MPAA will kill any search engine for the sake of the protection of their content

Re:Your right to what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939119)

Is that similar to: "But come on. We know that the vast majority of negroes are criminals."

Re:Your right to what? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939181)

damn I knew I shouldnt have downloaded that freebsd iso from torrent =)

Re:Your right to what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939481)

So fucking what if it was copyrighted? Copyright is a goddamned joke and you know it. The people whose work it was supposed to protect almost invariably get screwed out of it by some big corporation or other, who uses it to squeeze every last penny out of everything they can get their hands on. I'm not saying it should be OK to leak a new movie that's still in the theaters and let 10,000,000 people have it for free, but material that's aged? Broadcast TV show episodes? Rediculous. Rediculous to try to enforce, too: If these fuckers had their way, they'd make it illegal to have your friends over to watch a DVD that you bought a LEGAL COPY of! They'd make it a FELONY to ignore commercials on broadcast TV you're watching in your OWN LIVING ROOM. Hell, DVD's and Bluray? If they thought they could get away with it, they'd make you PAY every single time to watch discs you PAID FOR (anybody else remember DivX? Before it was just a video compression algorithm? Anybody? Bueller?).

I guess Bittorrent is more or less dead now. I guess I'll just have to keep my ears open for the next method of filesharing -- because there will always be one, even if it's SneakerNet (and good bloody luck clamping down on THAT!).

Remember, kids: From here to the eyes and the ears of the 'verse, that's my motto. You can't stop the signal!

Re:Your right to what? (1)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939489)

Good point.

Not a black and white issue.

I think the file-sharers should play ball if the MAFIAA play ball.

Otherwise fuck it. Not going to loose sleep over it.

Re:Your right to what? (1)

DaFallus (805248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939509)

Note: yes, I know that torrents in and of themselves are useful and not illegal. But come on. We know what the vast majority of stuff that places like BT Junkie link to, and it's not Linux ISO's. It's mainly copyright material.

In a number of countries this is perfectly legal. Or at least it was before the US quietly annexed the rest of the world.

Re:Your right to what? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939353)

Before starting up a website, your first question to yourself should be this: "Will my website enable someone to... copy something?"

If the answer to that question is yes, cease all operations immediately. Copying will bring about the apocalypse.

Record companies said radio was piracy too (1)

leftie (667677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939377)

Broadcasting the live recordings of musicians was stealing from their musicians.

Sheet music was stealing from musicians before radio.

Wow...... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938933)

R.I.P.

Nooooooo!!!! (2)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938957)

WTF? FBI breathing down their neck?

Re:Nooooooo!!!! (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939113)

Not really, but they did put on a big PR stunt where a big, popular file-sharing site, seemingly out-of-reach on the other side of the world, were shut down and the operators arrested. I'm not convinced that is was anything but a scripted reality show, but it seemed to have convinced the operators of BTJunkie that they should quit while they're ahead.

Re:Nooooooo!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939115)

Yea man, we live in sad times.. Dont we ?

Source code and database? (3, Insightful)

Smirker (695167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938959)

Publish one last torrent please? I'm sure someone would love to bring it back to life.

Re:Source code and database? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938969)

They would, except for btjunkie it was all about advertising profit.

Re:Source code and database? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939011)

Not sure why any of the slashtard kids think btjunkie or isohunt were somehow freedom fighters. They both made hideous sums in ad revenue.

--first had knowledge at one of the two...

Re:Source code and database? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939107)

You might as well be asking why Che shirts are so popular as capitalistic merchandise, and countless other examples.

Every movement has figureheads. No figurehead is perfect. Some only mildly so. Others horrendously a figurehead for the exact opposite of what they believed. In the defense of those two, making profit doesn't matter. Because Andy Warhol made quite a bit of money doesn't mean he wasn't an artist. Profit does not mean they aren't freedom fighters.

One person's freedom fighter in the copyright culture wars is another's dirty pirate stealing candy from paraplegic babies.

Re:Source code and database? (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939403)

Making money off of advertisements is just awful! No one should be allowed to do that. After all, what if someone uses your website to... infringe someone's copyright?

Re:Source code and database? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938985)

Definitely. I'd do it.

Not a huge loss (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938963)

To be honest, most of the time, when I was linked to btjunkie, I ended up having to log in to their site only to be sent to a closed tracker where I couldn't log in and get to the torrent. I'm sorry they've had to close, but with DHT and magnet links, I hope that sites like btjunkie will become less and less necessary.

Re:Not a huge loss (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938977)

??? you don't have to log into BTJ for anything other then profile management.

Re:Not a huge loss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938999)

??? you don't have to log into BTJ for anything other then profile management.

Maybe I'm an idiot, then, but every time I tried to grab a torrent, it wanted me to log in just to get to the site where they spidered it from.

Re:Not a huge loss (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939023)

Well they did have a few spidered private torrents, but that is all about logging into the private website not btjunky (to be fair I never used those torrents, maybe you had to log into both or somehow add your external private torrent site to your btjunkie account?).
My best guess was, if you are logged into the private site those links will just magically work.

Re:Not a huge loss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939029)

Agreed. Though what I'd much rather see is a torrent system that's actually anonymous, and have all the release groups switch over to that.

No, I do not mean Tor.

Cheggit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938989)

I'm more sad that cheggit just went offline. Can't say I ever used btjunkie as a frontend. Wake me when Piratebay goes black.

Re:Cheggit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939331)

Indeed... I see a small avalanche of similar site closures forming. I also see that it will not have the effect that content providers expect: torrent site users will not convert to paying customers in large numbers.

Best (5, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939003)

Best torrent site ever.
I don't know if anything new one has come up in the last few years but it is the best torrent site I have ever used.
Pirate Bay and Demonoid got nothing on btjunkie.
Or at least they didn't.

R.I.P old friend, or better yet go all zombie and come back to life.

Suprnova 4 lyfe bitches (5, Interesting)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939089)

Best torrent site ever. I don't know if anything new one has come up in the last few years but it is the best torrent site I have ever used.

I can respect your opinion, but nothing will ever match suprnova in my eyes. It didn't necessarily have the best features, but it had that glorious time when it seemed like the entire freaking pirate world (you know, outside of the pirates who actually originate the content and only use private ftp servers) used the same site. I don't think I ever looked for something on suprnova that I didn't find, and I can still remember the amazement of leaving kazaa and seeing a dozen torrents with tens of thousands of people a piece the week Doom 3 came out. No scrounging around in some shitty internal search engine or anything; just out there, on a regular searchable website like God intended.

Man, I'm getting all misty eyed.

Re:Suprnova 4 lyfe bitches (1)

slowLearner (2498468) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939483)

What about Google, it never fails to provide.

Re:Best (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939093)

BTJUNKIE AND SUPERNOVA 4EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!

R.I.P.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939035)

Wow. Aside from Monova.org, who's left?

Re: (1)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939047)

The Pirate Bay is still alive and kicking, but I'm wondering the same thing. My go-to sites were always BTJunkie and The Pirate Bay. I tried Monova once or twice but they always seemed lacking by comparison. Either they hadn't indexed what I wanted or it was never seeded - always some ancient torrent from years prior. Who else is still a major player?

HAH! (1)

idbeholda (2405958) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939041)

Sounds like they got a letter in the mail. In all seriousness, there are literally hundreds of torrent sites on the internet, with many of them being outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. I don't see what the fuss is about, honestly.

Re:HAH! (0)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939145)

Well the U.S. controls the DNS system, so that puts pretty much the entire world under US jurisdiction (unless you want to homebrew your own name lookups, that is). They shut down MegaUpload recently, and they were in New Zealand. The operators were arrested, too, but it remains to be seen if they will actually be extradited.

Eventually, you will probably need a license from the US government to have a web site at all. If you don't have one, your website will simply vanish, like nasa.gov did [internetsociety.org] .

Crickets (4, Interesting)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939061)

I sincerely don't mean to be a dick, but was btjunkie ever that good? Or that relevant? I tried to make serious use of it around 2009, and I don't remember being impressed. Nor was I disgusted. It was just another site. I moved on pretty quickly

The comment features and such were better than average, I suppose, but the time for public search engines passed years ago. There are so many private trackers with open signups. So many wonderlands where all of the comments are in comprehensible English and your download takes off immediately instead of slooowwwly ramping up.

So I guess I don't miss it, and don't recall that it was ever a big deal. But maybe I'm wrong?

Re:Crickets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939157)

Doesn't matter. The Hydra effect dictates that when one falls, two will take its place.

Re:Crickets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939501)

It was one that I used. And I think it often came up on the Google searches for "ubuntu linux torrent" results.

There's still a few more to few its place, but it's not a good sign. I was hoping the Scandinavian countries would stand up for their citizens' rights, rather than bow to pressure from US media companies.

I remember when Napster got closed down, and I was worried that was the end of being able to share music, but as we know that wasn't the case. I'm sure there's a whole lot of guys in their late teens/twenties who are thinking about how to enable the internet to be free for the world's citizens and free of government control.

Re:Crickets (2)

Zouden (232738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939505)

Yes, it was that good - BTJunkie had a much larger index than any other site because it indexed private trackers (they appeared with a lock icon, and a portal page let you log in and get the torrent from those sites). Even excluding the private torrents it had a bigger selection than other sites such as Mininova or TPB.

Re:Crickets (1)

bwhaley (410361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939523)

I used it exclusively. For me it was the best place to find torrents that where properly categorized with many seeders and, most importantly, ratings and comments so that you could be confident in the files you were downloading. It was an aggregator of other sites so it had an extensive database. I had been using it since it's inception in 2005. I'll miss it dearly.

Just once... (0, Flamebait)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939073)

Just once I would like to hear from genuine copyright holders on slashdot who both make a living from their creative works *AND* support un-regulated torrenting and file sharing. Everytime you so much as hint that copyright should be respected on this site you get modded troll, or flamebait. Why? So, people can't enter into a debate about it, and you never have to have your perceptions challenged? For a community which seems so passionate and open about free communication, it certainly seems to shut down people who don't agree with the majority pretty quickly.

Re:Just once... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939095)

eat shit, nigger

Re:Just once... (2)

bug1 (96678) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939211)

"Just once I would like to hear from genuine copyright holders on slashdot who both make a living from their creative works *AND* support un-regulated torrenting and file sharing"

Im sure there are lots of programmers here that make a living from creating software (a creative work) and support file sharing.

Or are you only interested in hearing from copyright holders that dont write Free software ?

Re:Just once... (1)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939327)

Are you being serious? If I was making money from Free software then of course I would want to get it distributed as widely as possible - that's the point of Free software. That is how it works. I would be fascinated to hear from a programmer who writes Free software and *doesn't* support file sharing.

Re:Just once... (5, Informative)

wizeman (170426) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939217)

Check out Paulo Coelho, a brazilian writer who has sold more than 100 million books in more than 150 countries:

http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2012/01/28/promo-bay/ [paulocoelhoblog.com]

Re:Just once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939363)

Mod parent up (informative)

Re:Just once... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939249)

Just once I would like to hear from genuine copyright holders on slashdot who both make a living from their creative works *AND* support un-regulated torrenting and file sharing. Everytime you so much as hint that copyright should be respected on this site you get modded troll, or flamebait. Why? So, people can't enter into a debate about it, and you never have to have your perceptions challenged? For a community which seems so passionate and open about free communication, it certainly seems to shut down people who don't agree with the majority pretty quickly.

there is nothing to debate about.. every argument made by copyright trolls has been to some extent if not completely refuted but they go around repeating it to people that have heard them a thousand times, know that they are invalid and never want to hear them again... where? on places they like to hang out like here... it's equivalent to someone coming to your house, forcing his way in and then preaching to you about some nonsense you know for a fact to be invalid.. is there a reason we should sit around in a circle calmly and repeat the refutations over and over again to these ignorant cunts? i think not.. when you have a new argument.. one with some merit (ie. not you downloaded this $20 movie from torrents so we lost $20 in profits, or you downloaded the $10 album so now they musician lost $10 (lol).....) and maybe we'll listen.. until then, feel free to fuck off

Re:Just once... (1)

multiben (1916126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939369)

Nice work anonymous. Big tough internet bully. When you are ready to post with an id, then I will address your reply.

Re:Just once... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939529)

because your ID actually indicates who you are and mine doesn't? My name is John Michels. I live in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Do you want my home address? now fucking respond if you actually have something of value to say that makes any kind of sense to anyone but yourself. i guarantee that you don't.

Re:Just once... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939431)

every argument made by copyright trolls has been to some extent if not completely refuted but they go around repeating it to people that have heard them a thousand times

What's humorous is that some of these "copyright trolls" probably feel the same way about you that you do about them.

A few battles will be won, the war will be lost. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939075)

For over a decade, the MAFIAA et al have utterly refused to follow the winning strategy of going along with the modern age and giving consumers what consumers want. In the end, the MAFIAA et al will die.

The current wave of sometimes successful temporary oppressions will do the same thing as killing the original Napster did. That is, it will result in an explosion of new and better means to do the same thing and so-called "piracy" will increase again by orders of magnitude.

Soon, it will be game over for the dinosaurs. At the current rate and without a huge change in direction (and it may already be too late for that), I predict the demise of the MAFIAA et al by 2020.

It will serve the dumb fuckers right.

Re:A few battles will be won, the war will be lost (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939193)

you bother to spout this in the year where "digital" (god I fucking hate that term, I guess all those CD's of music and software I have purchased since the early 90's were god damned analog) sales have surpassed physical sales

Re:A few battles will be won, the war will be lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939395)

you bother to spout this in the year where "digital" ... sales have surpassed physical sales

That comment is so lame and naive that it's not worth the effort to reply to it. You're out of your league. Any further comment from you will be ignored.

Trying to find Autocad 2012 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939091)

Anybody know where I can download it? And no, not Autodesk's Trial version.

Re:Trying to find Autocad 2012 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939225)

Pirate bay decision is probably why (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939125)

BTJunkie was based in sweden, and with the final word on Pirate bay's case handed down last week, it is now most likely illegal for BTJunkie to operate in sweden.

But in the end, what does it matter. It appears the next generation of technology is already here: Magnet links. Good luck shutting that down.

Re:Pirate bay decision is probably why (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939365)

They'll find a way to call a file hash a derivative work and sue anybody hosting a hash. In their eyes: the hash corresponds uniquely to a particular file they claim infringes their copyright, and it is derived from 100% of the file and therefore cannot be fair use. Long bows are the best (aka most profitable) bows in legal circles.

Re:Pirate bay decision is probably why (1)

jginspace (678908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939409)

So straight after this case, Pirate Bay move to a .se domain and continue operating; Btjunkie close down. This Sweden connection doesn't work out.

Magnet links are still links. They require much less space to host but they still need hosting. According to the US Immigration and Customs guys, linking is a crime - you lose your domain - or if you happen to live in the US (or UK) ... your freedom.

They made their money and they're running. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939203)

Take the money and run

Re:They made their money and they're running. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939467)

Beter than spending it on Lawers.

Re:They made their money and they're running. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939503)

Take the money and run

Please don't tell me a story about Jack and Diane.

Something needs to give (4, Interesting)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939247)

Copyright does need to change somewhat. A key to human success is where one person invents something cool and others build on that in an endless chain. I think we do need copyright to prevent a publishing company from stealing a book from an author and printing away or a Chinese company taking that same book and flooding the market with knockoffs. But it has gone too far where a modern musician can't play with some distinctive riffs from a 40 year old Beatles song without being in the center of a lawyer pile-up.

Many of Gutenberg's first bibles were burned as work of the devil. I suspect that this was the Church not liking their loss of bible creation control. I doubt that any of the upset priests thought the devil had anything to do with their printing.

Not the best torrent site to go down recently... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939361)

Nope, the best torrent site to go down recently was Cheggit.net. I'll miss it. I posted some torrents of me and various girlfriends (With their permission of course). It was a great community, but they don;t want to keep up with all the dmca notices they were getting.

btjunkie? bleh.

Cheggit? I'll miss.

Thanks and so long for all the fish. (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939473)

mmmm fish...

Next best site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939493)

What would you guys say the next best site now that this has gone? Mainly for TV programs and movies, occasionally games, programs and music.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...