×

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!

Music Piracy Documentary Released As Torrent

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the eating-the-dogfood dept.

Movies 142

goodbye_kitty writes "The producers of a new documentary film analyzing global music piracy have decided to 'put their money where their mouth is' by releasing the film as a free Xvid download (hosted by the Pirate Bay, as one would expect). The film explores the blurred line between 'fair use' and piracy, and includes interviews with DJ Danger Mouse (creator of the now infamous 'grey album'), Lawrence Lessig (founder of Creative Commons), the lads from the Pirate Bay, and even some guy from the MPAA. Here is a link to the torrent."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

142 comments

Put their money where their mouth is (2, Informative)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#20085731)

Are you sure it wasn't simply the case that they're out of money and/or nobody will distribute the documentary for them?

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20085865)

Are you sure it wasn't simply the case that they're out of money and/or nobody will distribute the documentary for them?

Or maybe they're just clever and realise they can get lots of free publicity on sites like /. by releasing the programme as a torrent. Don't think we'll ever know, but you're reading this article aren't you?

Unfortunately am in Canada and Bittorrent has been banned [torrentfreak.com] by the Internet Police [rogers.com] over here, so we're not allowed to download files.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20085889)

serves thieving scum like you right for stealing other peoples hard work, dipshit.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

another_fanboy (987962) | more than 6 years ago | (#20085945)

FTFS: releasing the film as a free Xvid download

Believe it or not, there are legit purposes for torrents. Too bad so many people insist upon using them for not-so-legit reasons.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (0, Flamebait)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086129)

Believe it or not, there are legit purposes for torrents. Too bad so many people insist upon using them for not-so-legit reasons.

Totally. And then they use the criminals to try to pass laws like the Brady Bill and the 'Assault' Weapons Ban and ...

Oh wait...

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086517)

That's a terrible analogy. The people who pirate materials may be economically depleting creators of royalties, but they sure as hell aren't killing them.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086873)

The people impacted by the Brady Bill and the AWB weren't killing anyone either.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20088869)

Yet.
Damn brady bill.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 6 years ago | (#20089979)

The Brady Bill has expired. In all states there is an instant background check instead. Takes about 3 minutes.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086125)

serves thieving scum like you right for stealing other peoples hard work, dipshit.

*sigh* you know the only thing I've ever tried to download through bittorrent is Ubuntu, am not interested in illegally downloading stuff (that doesn't mean that I think Hollywood films and anything other than Indie bands are worth paying for though, even if they were I don't want to support the film/music industry bullying people).

Anyway, in this case I just wanted to lessen the strain on Canonical's servers. They should send the bandwidth bill for all Canadian Ubuntu downloads to Rogers: bunch of shunts.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (4, Informative)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 6 years ago | (#20085969)

You can download just fine on Rogers. I sure do. Just be sure to use the "Encrypt Traffic" option on Azureus, and set yourself up with a non-standard port. Check out the Azureus Wiki on NAT Problems [azureuswiki.com] on how to do this. I suggest using a port like 25522 or something like that.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086059)

Actually Rogers throttles all encrypted traffic.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086091)

In case you didn't know, Rogers shapes all encrypted traffic (see http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs#Cana da [azureuswiki.com] ), which includes anything from SSH to torrents. In fact, the only way to download this movie at a reasonable rate through Rogers is to disable Encrypt Traffic (and possibly some other settings, depending on your config). Then it'll go just fine and fast. However, if you plan on downloading anything remotely illegal looking (i.e. OS iso's, video games, ripped movies) they'll send you a nice Cease and Desist notice occasionally.

Oh, and the reason you may be able to download fine is because they're only doing this Traffic shaping in certain areas (most), and there are a few areas I know of where they don't seem to have control just yet. And no, there's no magic port-trickery you can do to get around their traffic shaping.

So does anyone know an HTTP or FTP source for this movie?

Sincerely,
An unwilling Rogers customer

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

fiendy (931228) | more than 6 years ago | (#20088447)

I am running encrypted BT traffic using Rogers Extreme, while I have had slowdowns before, I generally can run 150-500kbps just fine.

That being said I don't like Rogers (cut newsgroup access, traffic shaping, etc.) but its the best of the worst choices for me.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20089129)

It used to be using port 1720 (Rogers' VoIP port) would ensure no throttling occurred, but I read some time ago that doesn't work anymore. I suggest rogers customers with an available alternative provider cancel their service as Rogers Cable is totally untrustworthy. That's the conclusion I came to anyway, after buying a modem from them after recieving (ultimately deceptive) promises of "unlimited service" only to have their policy change completely within a couple months - "we didn't mean no limits when we said unlimited, sorry."

shhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20089171)

Don't tell'm about 25522, that's my port.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 6 years ago | (#20090285)

They do seem to still be able to limit upstream bandwidth, I only get 30-50 kbps now.

And their method of accomplishing that are becoming more draconian, they seem to be hitting both ports and encrypted data.

It used to be that you only needed to encrypt the data itself, now you need to encrypt the headers, it's going to get worse before it gets better too :(

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (2, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086003)

Unfortunately am in Canada and Bittorrent has been banned [torrentfreak.com] by the Internet Police [rogers.com] over here, so we're not allowed to download files.
Wow. That's totally freaking insane!

Next time I download an OS via BT, I'll think of you... I'm really sorry, man.

That said, I'm a little surprised and disappointed at Slashdot's reaction to this documentary. Someone does a documentary about file sharing, puts it up on BT and we attack them for it... sad. I would have thought we'd be glad to see that someone is finally starting to smell the new media. Do they want their documentary seen? Of course, they do, but if this works out, you know there will be thousands of fairly smart people thinking, "OK, now how do we make that a business?"

The age of the fight between content creators and peer-to-peer sharing needs to come to an end. The age of the peer-to-peer media empires is long overdue.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086127)

Next time I download an OS via BT, I'll think of you... I'm really sorry, man.
Don't feel that sorry. It's not true. I'm on Rogers and I use Azureus with encryption. I get 300KB/s torrent downloads just fine. They recently bumped up speeds for free from 4Mb to 6Mb so I'm sure the potential Bittorrent speeds are much faster than I get. I'm just at the mercy of whoever's uploading.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086271)

Incorrect, this just means that the area you're in hasn't been affected by their traffic shaping yet . It is true. Call and ask tech support. They'll tell you they do. And some of them will even agree that it's dumb.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086461)

>I get 300KB/s torrent downloads just fine.
>They recently bumped up speeds for free from 4Mb to 6Mb

So now you can burn through your unlimited (limited) 50 GB quota in under 1 day? Sweet deal!

And the rogers guy wonders why I won't buy their service... Perhaps because I like to download for more than 1 day each month.

My current ISP expects me to use more than 100 GB a month (they offer two peering options, one for customers under 100 GB, one for unlimited customers). And, at $29.95 a month, they make me wonder why anyone would use cable.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086797)

And you're unwilling to tell us who this ISP is?

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

GraZZ (9716) | more than 6 years ago | (#20088735)

I'm going to go ahead and assume that he's using Teksavvy, as he has perfectly described their service breakdown.

http://teksavvy.com/ [teksavvy.com]

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

tkdtaylor (1039822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20087709)

Yeah I'm using Robers too except I'm paying for the extreme package (mostly for higher upload speeds) and my download speed has also been bumped except everytime I run a speed test I'm lucky to get 500k. I'm a few days away from calling and cancelling if they can't even deliver 1Mb when I'm paying for 8.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 6 years ago | (#20087961)

There's probably something with the cables on your street or in your house/apartment. I had the same problem when I lived with my parents. Just ask them to come check out the lines. They should be able to fix it for free and give you a refund on as many months as you complain about.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

tkdtaylor (1039822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20089241)

Thanks, I've been meaning to check the connections in the house because my gf mentioned even the cable signal is "noisy" so you're probably right.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 6 years ago | (#20089785)

Just a heads up - one time our cable connection got "noisy" as well. This ended up being due to some road construction work that was done right near our house. Rogers had to dig a huge deep hole in our front yard to fix it. It only took about 3 days, they didn't charge us anything, and they replaced the grass. Still it was a real nuisance and eyesore.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086239)

Someone does a documentary about file sharing, puts it up on BT and we attack them for it... sad. I would have thought we'd be glad to see that someone is finally starting to smell the new media.

They put it on BT because their target auditory uses BT, not because they are "smelling new media".

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086229)

I switched to Sympatico for that reason. At the time they didn't have a bandwidth cap either, they don't seem to care currently though with my account. I download pretty constant using ~250 GB month (total up+down). Both Bell and Rogers, suck, but at least Sympatico seems to let me use the bandwidth I pay for and not charge overage fees (yet).

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

Moniker42 (1131485) | more than 6 years ago | (#20087417)

The whole service has been banned in Canada? That can't be right, it's used for lots of things - Linux distros, software updates... Microsoft are even thinking about implementing their own flavour of it in the next version of Windows (or a service pack for Vista).

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

Da_Weasel (458921) | more than 6 years ago | (#20089255)

Oddly enough when I clicked on the link for the torrent download, my torrent application generated the following message box: "Torrent Task Exist!"

---------
Created time: 2007.07.11 11:19:34
Finish time: 2007.07.11 14:29:53
---------

Apparently I downloaded this last month and it was so great that I forgot to even watch it.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20085903)

I really wonder about that. A lot of movies don't get a distributorship, it's a basic fact of the industry, even more so with indie films.

Anyways, "blurring the line between fair use and piracy" is a red flag to me. I really won't agree with an argument that somehow fair use can be blurred to the extend that distributing entire works (entire songs, entire albums, entire movies, entire TV episodes) to potentially millions of people is somehow fair use. Fair use has usually been interpreted as short clippings, parodies, making a personal copy of a work that you legitimately have and so on.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (4, Insightful)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086367)

Well of course the "blurred line" won't appear when you counterpoint two extremes: short clips on the one hand (clearly fair use) versus distributing full copies to millions of people on the other hand (clearly copyright infringement, according to current laws).

However, your implication that there is no "blurred line" isn't fair. The example given in the summary is DJ Danger Mouse, who mixed two different works to create something totally original. The music labels said that this was "clearly infringement" whereas many artists and fans said this work was novel and original, and clearly something that should be allowed under fair use (whether or not it actually is fair use is for courts to decide, I suppose, but the arguments regarding copyright are not so much about what the law is, but rather what it should be). This is one case where there is disagreement about how to interpret the actions, hence a "blurred line."

Lawrence Lessig (in his books, blog entries, talks, etc.) provides many other examples of activities which straddle this line (e.g. a film-maker begin told to pay thousands of dollars because a Simpsons clip was playing in the background of one of the scenes in a documentary). Sometimes they are legal yet still legally persecuted by the big-labels. Sometimes they are illegal yet many people feel they are legitimate personal uses, or important creative uses. These fringe cases are very interesting.

Now, I have not watched the documentary under discussion, so I can't say whether they tackle these fringe cases in a thoughtful way. However, I can honestly say that there is a dangerous blurred line between what you are allowed to do according to "fair use" and what you are going to get in trouble for doing according to "copyright law." The fact that this line is so ill-defined is what leads to all the questionable lawsuits against artists and end-users... and to a chilling effect in the production of creative works (which Lessig worries about constantly).

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

ioshhdflwuegfh (1067182) | more than 6 years ago | (#20088745)

The example given in the summary is DJ Danger Mouse, who mixed two different works to create something totally original.
Which sounds to me just like blurring the blur.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086499)

IANAL, but it doesn't seem to me that the concept of fair use was well-defined in the first place (and therefore has never been anything but blurry). Certainly there have been decisions by courts that some particular use is fair, but it does not necessarily follow that all other uses are unfair and punishable. My understanding is that even a conservative legal attempt to define "fair use" would be a bit like trying to define "self defense". It's not a cut-and-dry issue, but rather one that has to be interpreted a bit on a case-by-case basis.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 6 years ago | (#20087025)

My understanding is that even a conservative legal attempt to define "fair use" would be a bit like trying to define "self defense". It's not a cut-and-dry issue, but rather one that has to be interpreted a bit on a case-by-case basis.

yes, it needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis, by the courts... not by corporations, not by lobbyists, not by useless technologies, not by ISPs, not by site operators, not by high priced legal goon squads and not by trade groups.

the problem is that you can use the DMCA to club fair use and free speech *BEFORE* the courts get involved.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

tubapro12 (896596) | more than 6 years ago | (#20088507)

Exactly, we (Americans) must preserve the few fair use rights we have remaining. Further confusing the ignorants by blurring piracy and fair use definitely will not help and I'm sure many are aware the MPAA and RIAA would be glad to see fair use rights gone.

Re:Put their money where their mouth is (1)

MontyApollo (849862) | more than 6 years ago | (#20085913)

Not many people pay to see propaganda documentaries to begin with, and file sharing is such an exciting topic...War in Iraq, National Health-care Crisis, File Sharing...

Sir? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20085745)

But what will Sir Elton John think of this?

Pay time (3, Insightful)

ciryon (218518) | more than 6 years ago | (#20085755)

I wonder who's paying the producers salaries.

Re:Pay time (2, Informative)

phillip_alexander (1136437) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086531)

It's at least partially funded by Denmark's national broadcasting corporation. It was produced and aired here more than three months ago, so part of the salaries are paid by the Danish television license fee payers (not including myself).

They ask [goodcopybadcopy.net] for donations though.

needs green monsters, in directors cut (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086747)

Disney did Pirates, the film does not contain green characters like shrek and so failed the multiplex cinema test.

await the directors cut

Coming up, on DVD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20085789)

The DVD will include a rootkit...

I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... (2, Insightful)

samuel4242 (630369) | more than 6 years ago | (#20085933)

I wish I could be optimistic for their bank account, but here's what will probably happen: the file sharing crowd will download it, watch it with a few beers, nod in constant agreement, curse the Man, and then raise a beer in a toast to the coolness of the producers. Perhaps a few will even contribute to the tip jar. But the jar won't fill up enough to pay for the time put into the project. And the producers sure won't make enough money to support themselves or a family so they can do such a cool thing again. Oh well.

Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... (5, Insightful)

Yonatanz (798506) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086049)

Also, the producers' work will be viewed by thousands of people, and probably reviewed by tens of professionals and might reach production company managers, who may hire them for their next movie...

If you are unknown, then this can be the perfect entrance to the industry. But you have to be good so that your free product is at least somewhat impressive.

Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... (1)

TheLazySci-FiAuthor (1089561) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086619)

It's always refreshing to find someone posting one's exact thoughts and sentiments.

This is certainly an opportunity for the creators, here. This world of today is so concerned with cash that we seem to forget the value of things which do not produce cash.

Really, those like the FSF, Creative Commons and the EFF should in fact be sponsoring these kind of productions. That would then be genuine revenue for the creators.

Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086071)

Why does their bank account have to be the bottom line?
Why couldn't they maybe, just maybe, want this to be free, be willing to put this documentary out there so that anyone can see it for free, even at a (monetary) loss to them? What is wrong with contributing to the public good without focusing on what you are going to get in return?

Capitalists. Yech.

Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20087067)

Indeed. This person's assumption seems to be that there aren't people on this planet who are so charitable that they do something for others even if it comes at a great cost for them. But I guess in his or her world such sacrificial behavior would be regarded as insane.

I have no doubt that the makers of this documentary would very much like to recoup their expenses, even if they don't have any interest in profiting. But it would seem like the distribution of their movie is just a little more important to them if they're willing to provide it on BitTorent and aren't even offering anything for purchase.

Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20087103)

What do you do to get food and shelter and medical care? Beg? Live off mom and dad?

Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20087879)

It is possible that those who worked on the project are employed elsewhere, or at the very least receive enough income from other projects to pay for bills and such.

Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20087959)

For 3 minutes of video on YouTube, yes. For a full length, professional quality documentary, no.

Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20089485)

Why not? A lot of free/open source software would be a counterexample to your argument.

Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086335)

... the file sharing crowd will download it, watch it with a few beers, nod in constant agreement, curse the Man, and then raise a beer in a toast to the coolness of the producers. Perhaps a few will even contribute to the tip jar. But the jar won't fill up ...
That's precisely the story of the teams who made the Half Life mods CounterStrike and Portal. They were noticed by Valve Software and hired. Even if they weren't they'd have a heck of a portfolio for their next job interview.

Re:I'm sure glad they have a trust fund... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086597)

apparently, although they are asking for donations, they dont believe in covering its cost by that method either (from http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/ [goodcopybadcopy.net] ): We sold the film to the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR) who have been the first, and until now the only TV station, to air it. This money covered about one fourth of the total costs, so obviously we need to sell it to other TV broadcasters world wide to make ends meet. If you want to help us with this, please suggest your local broadcaster to get in touch with us. given the fringe nature of this kind of a project, id say selling it to even a single TV station is not a bad achievement.. Also note, thats Danish public broadcaster, imo another demonstration of the value of broadcasting free from commercial interests; the idea of such a documentary being aired on top TV station (afaik public broadcasters are very strong in nordic countries) of a country is incredibly suprising to me...

infamous == bad (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086119)

the word infamous means famous in a disgraceful way. it's a bad thing. you're not using it right.

whoa there.. (2, Insightful)

newr00tic (471568) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086845)

the word infamous means famous in a disgraceful way. it's a bad thing. you're not using it right.

That depends on whether you consider fame to be a good thing or not.

(Infamity ftw)

Re:infamous == bad (1)

Darksun (97127) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086855)

Quote the Three Amigos!

The infamous El Guapo."

What does that mean?
"In-famous"?

In-famous is when you're
more than famous.

This man El Guapo is not just famous,
he's in-famous.

Re:infamous == bad (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086889)

Dangermouse's Grey album, like all mashups that haven't had their rights negotiated with the original artists' legal representatives are illegal.

Once upon a time, breaking the law was thought of as vaguely 'bad' and 'disgraceful', so the term sounds fine to me.

Re:infamous == bad (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20087195)

Dangermouse's Grey album, like all mashups that haven't had their rights negotiated with the original artists' legal representatives are illegal.

Well, thank you for your ruling your honor.

Once upon a time, breaking the law was thought of as vaguely 'bad' and 'disgraceful', so the term sounds fine to me.

And then we were flooded with stupid laws, laws that most people don't want, and laws that were just downright immoral to enforce.

Saying that breaking a law (like the "blacks in back" from the 60s) is always bad or disgraceful is just plain stupid. We should not follow laws just because they are there, they need to reflect our beliefs and protect our freedom.

Re:infamous == bad (1)

Daychilde (744181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20089639)

And I bet you NEVER exceed the speed limit by even 1 mph, right? You stinky law breaker!

(and if, in fact, you don't, I bet there's SOME law somewhere you break... most people do...)

very good movie! (1)

Comsn (686413) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086189)

good copy bad copy is a very well produced movie.
it also has interviews from some of the key players in this copyright fight.

now i want to find some techno brega music!

OMG ur so busted (1)

ArcadeX (866171) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086193)

they partnered with the FBI and getting this movie will put spyware on your machine and inform the MPAA and RIAA...

seriously tho. All I want to know on the subject i've already read here and other sites. People most comfortable with downloading movies using torrents have better movies to get and I would guess aren't that interested. Only thing I would even be remotely interested in is some of the qoutes from the mpaa guy just to see one individual's scewed opinions, but I'd rather have it in text format.

On youtube? (1)

digirus (854991) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086289)

I don't have a bit torrent client. Is it on youtube yet?

Re:On youtube? (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086373)

Get one [sourceforge.net] - it's worth it.

Re:On youtube? (1)

nlitement (1098451) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086427)

Just because you're on Linux doesn't mean everyone has to run Java software. Torrent FTW.

Re:On youtube? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20087519)

Java means you can't be hit by a buffer overrun, which is the last thing you need when using such a client...

Re:On youtube? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20088747)

-1 Wrong.

tsk^3, Linuxpeople (1)

newr00tic (471568) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086511)

Azareus is the worst example of a good program.

(Yes, for you hillbilly Linux folks; that dot is a period)

ed2k link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086305)

for those who want the real thing (remove spaces and wrapping)

ed2k://|file|Good.Copy.Bad.Copy.2007. LiMiTeD.DVDRip.XviD-GCBC.avi|731333922|9300AC0FA91 7351EB73E5459B70995F6|/

omg DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20086737)

I'm going to totally DMCA you guyz for hosting copyrighted material and/or links to it.

The producers will starve (1)

Goog500 (697810) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086787)

Maybe its time to admit that as much as we want everything to be free (software, music, movies) it just doesn't work on a large scale. Sure, us slashdot geeks can download copyrighted content all we want, but it DOES have a negative financial impact on the producers of that content. How big is that impact? I don't know - maybe marginal, maybe significant. I'm sure a lot of people justify this by reasoning that the only people losing money are rich overpaid content producers. But I'm not sure if that though process is correct...

Re:The producers will starve (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#20087105)

it DOES have a negative financial impact on the producers of that content.
How do you know?

You have to factor in the fact that seeing a movie/listening to a song is advertisement for that work and for the creators of that work. I don't know if this is going to be enough to counter the loss from the people who download the work instead of buying it (not all "pirates" are in this category, but I digress), but it does need to be considered.

If you have evidence (a study, statistics) that there is a negative impact, I would be very interested to see it. (Any study done by the MPAA/RIAA/Affiliates doesn't count, they bend and break the facts way to often for me to trust any "research" they do in the matter.)

I understand that it seems like common sense to assume that downloading hurts the movie and music industries, mostly because they make such a stink over it. But assumptions like this only muddy the water.

I am not attacking you in any way, I just really hate it when things I consider to be propaganda are treated like facts without any evidence. =^)

Re:The producers will starve (1)

Goog500 (697810) | more than 6 years ago | (#20088021)

I certainly don't have any studies - and I doubt it's very feasible to do a real, independent study on this. I mean how can you accurately measure the viral marketing benefit of watching a downloaded movie? I only say this based on my intuition and personal experiences. And I've come to believe this more strongly lately. Not because my views have changed - but because my personal experiences have. I go to college, and I've definitely noticed an increase in piracy among students. Specifically in new forms of piracy - more people than ever before students watch downloaded tv shows and movies - but importantly, its an increasingly popular trend. But lets assume that you're right - that the marketing benefits of piracy outweigh any lost revenue. If this really is a revenue generating strategy for media companies, it is not the communities' right to implement it (especially given the media companies expressly forbidding it). In a capitalist market, if this were true, someone should use it to create their own company that would topple the media empires :)

Re:The producers will starve (2, Interesting)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#20088835)

I doubt it's very feasible to do a real, independent study on this.
I tend to agree with you on this.
But it doesn't [washingtonpost.com] stop [com.com] people [harvard.edu] from [princeton.edu] trying [unc.edu] .
(The last two are PDFs)

I never said that it outweighed, or even matched the lost revenue, I said it might which means you can't say for sure that piracy has a negative impact.
I tend to believe that piracy doesn't have a negative impact though because of an interesting observation that I read somewhere. (but I can't for the life of me remember where, could have been a /. post)

There are 3 types of pirates:
  1. People who would have bought the product, but didn't because they downloaded it.
  2. People who wouldn't have bought the product, but downloaded it and liked it enough to buy/recommend it to their friends.
  3. People who wouldn't have bought the product, but downloaded it and didn't like it enough to buy/recommend it to their friends.
As long as 2 and 3 are greater than 1, there is a net gain.

As to whether or not this is up to the community to decide, I'm not arguing the moral issues, I'm just arguing the economic ones. In economics, the consumer always decides the profit, even when that makes them criminals.

mod parent up! (1)

Daychilde (744181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20089807)

But more importantly, someone PLEASE needs to gather up the Recording Ass. of America and Motion Picture Ass. of America folks, and drill this into their skulls.

I don't think anyone has a good answer on the exact impact, but it's definitely not the ultimate-extreme-badness the aforementions Ass.'s claim; and it's clearly not 100% badness-free, as a lot of the geeks (m'self included) try and claim...

It's got some positive and negative side effects...

But the market is changing, whether anyone likes it or not. Legislating it to keep it the way it is is as stupid as trying to protect coal sellers during the transition to electricity a century ago... Times are changing, and you can't stop it. We've got to come up with different ways of rewarding content creators and epople who do, in fact, help distribute that content to the people who will enjoy it.

But as with so many other problems - healthcare, poverty (and the shrinking middle class), racism - there are so many problems, and this is one of the less important ones in the larger scheme of things... why can't we work on solutions? But we throw people in jail for pirating a song. Can't keep a good enough job? If you're unlucky, you might have a downward spiral and lose your home, on the street, into jail for vagrancy... Children growing up in poverty....... I know, this is all disjointed, but I'm compressing a multi-page rant into a paragraph or two... :P

Just seems like our current systems (i.e. governments, companies, society in general) aren't solving the problems that need solving. Take, for example, the original *goals* of Communism or Socialism - great stuff! But in practice, it didn't work out. So-called "Democracy" isn't doing all that hot either...

Re:The producers will starve (1)

Goog500 (697810) | more than 6 years ago | (#20090003)

I think the most important thing about what I'm saying here is the trend. I've noticed over the last year, and continue to notice, a dramatic increase in the amount and types of piracy by my peers. I think any college student (at least at my school) would agree with this assessment. It is actually getting easier and more common to pirate copyrighted materials - music, movies, tv, even books. If this trend continues, piracy will move more and more towards having a significant negative financial impact. In fact, one of those articles you linked to, "Music Sales in the Age of File Sharing" by Eric S. Boorstin, seems to corroborate this:

My findings suggest that file sharing is not the cause of the recent decline in record sales, and that file sharing decreases the record purchases of younger people while increasing the purchases of older people.
Right now, file sharing may not be bad for sales. People are creatures of habit - the older generation is more used to buying CDs, and they're more opposed to technology in general, so it is natural that file sharing may not affect their consumption patterns. But as the younger generation becomes the older generation, they will bring their habits with them too, and I don't think they are likely to abandon file sharing in favor of buying records. And forget about the generation that are the kids now - they'll probably never even see a CD in a jewel case. Basically, I'm saying that I think piracy is going to become a bigger and bigger issue, until it actually begins to have real, measurable, negative financial impact on content producers. And I really don't think lawsuits or DRM is going to be a solution. I think 10 or 15 years in the future the media industry will be dramatically different - but how, I'm not exactly sure.

Re:The producers will starve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20088333)

I think that you are exaggerating the problem. Not everyone downloads copyrighted material illegally. Believe it or not, there is still a healthy buying population, albeit a stagnating one. If there wasn't there wouldn't be any DVD sales or software purchases to speak of.

Re:The producers will starve (2, Insightful)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#20088453)

That's not true and it's never been true.

If i want to buy and view the movie "300" but a friend comes over with a movie of his and we watch that instead, I am no less inclined to eventually purchase and watch the movie 300. If he made me spend money to watch his movie, then I would be less inclined.

Even if the movie in question WAS 300, I'd still be willing to go and purchase it if I decided it was worth my money, and a lot of movies are.

The argument you're implying is that getting something for free makes you less likely to spend money, and that's not true, it's never been true, and it will never BE true. People with money and nothing better to do will spend their money on stuff they like and want.

You have to keep in mind that the guys you're supporting are the same people who catch someone watching a movie that they didn't pay for and spend hundreds of thousands in attorney fees in order to victimize said person to set an "example" of what happens to you if you ever watch movies for free before paying for them.

All for what? To save a few bucks in the future? To "save" their business from the evil pirates? Hardly. The reason these guys hunt down and victimize kids and college students is because they can write off their legal expenses as a cost of doing business and hopefully slip into a lower tax bracket, cheating the American people out of tax money.

Re:The producers will starve (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 6 years ago | (#20089941)

The reason these guys hunt down and victimize kids and college students is because they can write off their legal expenses as a cost of doing business and hopefully slip into a lower tax bracket, cheating the American people out of tax money.

That makes no sense. They have to have some reason other than saving a little tax money, because they have to spend more than what they'll save. The tax savings may partially offset the legal expenses, reducing somewhat the risk of litigation, but they don't even eliminate all of the litigation expenses much less produce a net gain.

Re:The producers will starve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20090123)

The argument you're implying is that getting something for free makes you less likely to spend money, and that's not true, it's never been true, and it will never BE true.

You're kidding, right? I have had friends that, although there are hundreds of movies in their library, have never owned an original copy of a movie in their lives. They've either copied it from cable, got a copy from "the guy in the theater in Reno", duplicated directly from another (rented or loaned) tape and LaserDisc or, now, downloaded from the Internet.

None of these are by any means poor - their video equipment alone is worth thousands of dollars - they just don't see any problem with just making copies of stuff they like.

Documshmontary (1)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 6 years ago | (#20086799)

That torrent file thing is 4kb how the hell is that a documentary, it doenst even play. /sarcasm

TPB doesn't host the movie (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20088225)

hosted by the Pirate Bay, as one would expect

Technically TPB doesn't host movies, which is why they are still around.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...