The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Only 0.3% of BitTorrent files legal
Old 23rd July 2010
  #1
Old 23rd July 2010
  #2
...

Quote:
Basically, the 89 percent is a baseline number when it came to infringing files, and the three most shared categories were movies, music, and TV shows—among those categories, there were zero legal files being shared.
Old 23rd July 2010
  #3
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Interesting... so does that mean that even though torrents can be used legally, a case can be made for shutting them down or blocking them? Certainly if the percentages are correct that's pretty insane... they are clearly providing almost zero value for legal content.
Old 23rd July 2010
  #4
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Interesting... so does that mean that even though torrents can be used legally, a case can be made for shutting them down or blocking them? Certainly if the percentages are correct that's pretty insane... they are clearly providing almost zero value for legal content.
That is an interesting question, and it was the question that was put in front of the Supreme Court in the Grokster case.

A bit of background: the first time the issue came up was in Sony, which formed the basis of the arguments in Grokster. Sony asked, basically, can the manufacturer of a product or service be liable for third-party copyright infringement if people can use it to infringe copyright? The Betamax player that Sony made, after all, could be used to record TV shows off the air without permission, or copy movies without permission. The rule the Court came up with was no, if the product or service has substantial noninfringing uses.

So this evidence of what is available on p2p networks would have been very helpful. It would have been very difficult to argue that 0.3% is substantial.

But here's the twist: the Court completely sidestepped the Sony question in Grokster. Partially, it was because Grokster was attempting to use Sony as a shield against all liability. In other words, they were saying that if their product was found to have substantial noninfringing uses, they could encourage their users to engage in infringing uses til the cows came home without any risk of liability.

So the Court simply sidestepped Sony and left the issue of whether P2P technology itself was acceptable or not to another day. Sony was only one way to determine third-party liability, but it doesn't shield a company from other ways. You can still be liable if you contribute to or induce infringement, or if you benefit from infringement that you can control.

I think that was a good decision. The technology of P2P itself isn't a problem, it's the Isohunts, Limewires, Kazaas, etc, who are using it to enable a free-for-all piracy orgy. The movie industry eventually benefitted from Sony's technology - the home video market is an essential part of their model today. I don't see any reason why P2P won't be the same; it's a cost-efficient and fast method of distribution with growing legitimate use by legitimate companies.

But as more and more courts address the services and sites that use P2P, it becomes clear that they bear a lot of responsibility in preventing illegitimate uses.
Old 23rd July 2010
  #5
Gear Addict
 
Monobasser's Avatar
 

Torrents are just so handy.
Old 23rd July 2010
  #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by terryhart View Post
That is an interesting question, and it was the question that was put in front of the Supreme Court in the Grokster case.

A bit of background: the first time the issue came up was in Sony, which formed the basis of the arguments in Grokster. Sony asked, basically, can the manufacturer of a product or service be liable for third-party copyright infringement if people can use it to infringe copyright? The Betamax player that Sony made, after all, could be used to record TV shows off the air without permission, or copy movies without permission. The rule the Court came up with was no, if the product or service has substantial noninfringing uses.

So this evidence of what is available on p2p networks would have been very helpful. It would have been very difficult to argue that 0.3% is substantial.

But here's the twist: the Court completely sidestepped the Sony question in Grokster. Partially, it was because Grokster was attempting to use Sony as a shield against all liability. In other words, they were saying that if their product was found to have substantial noninfringing uses, they could encourage their users to engage in infringing uses til the cows came home without any risk of liability.

So the Court simply sidestepped Sony and left the issue of whether P2P technology itself was acceptable or not to another day. Sony was only one way to determine third-party liability, but it doesn't shield a company from other ways. You can still be liable if you contribute to or induce infringement, or if you benefit from infringement that you can control.

I think that was a good decision. The technology of P2P itself isn't a problem, it's the Isohunts, Limewires, Kazaas, etc, who are using it to enable a free-for-all piracy orgy. The movie industry eventually benefitted from Sony's technology - the home video market is an essential part of their model today. I don't see any reason why P2P won't be the same; it's a cost-efficient and fast method of distribution with growing legitimate use by legitimate companies.

But as more and more courts address the services and sites that use P2P, it becomes clear that they bear a lot of responsibility in preventing illegitimate uses.
The obvious move on behalf of the P2P's and Torrents would be to in act a DMCA mechanism (legitimately) and say neener, neener as copyright holders play wack a mole.

At present that's what really differentiates P2P/Torrents from Rapidshare... For now - I'd take the ability to use DMCA... even if it cost me - I could at least manage or contain the largest, most damaging infringements.

I've been playing with seeding Rapidshare with Itunes Links.... to replace the DMCA takedowns...
Old 23rd July 2010
  #7
I admit you can read evidence any way you want, but it's out there.
For example, a 2008 survey that found a high number (over 800) of illegally obtained music tracks on teenager's iPods (those who took part in the survey):
Average teenager's iPod has 800 illegal music tracks - Times Online

My relations have signed up for a 200gig a month internet account.
None of them are creative, they don't even make their own home movies to upload onto YouTube. Five years ago they were happy with 1 or 2 gig.
What's changed? The ever increasing availability of movies, tv shows and music on filesharing sites, and the increasing acceptability amongst their peer group of illegal downloading.
Old 23rd July 2010
  #8
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by terryhart View Post

I think that was a good decision. The technology of P2P itself isn't a problem, it's the Isohunts, Limewires, Kazaas, etc, who are using it to enable a free-for-all piracy orgy. The movie industry eventually benefitted from Sony's technology - the home video market is an essential part of their model today. I don't see any reason why P2P won't be the same; it's a cost-efficient and fast method of distribution with growing legitimate use by legitimate companies.

But as more and more courts address the services and sites that use P2P, it becomes clear that they bear a lot of responsibility in preventing illegitimate uses.
Sorry for requesting free pseudo legal opinion, but what would be a good tact for ensuring legal use of torrents? For example... is there a way to make the torrent enablers responsible for whether the content is legit or not? I can't see a way, but...? Isn't that what DMCA protected, the responsibility (or lack thereof) of the carrier?

I understand there may be things you can do on the end user side, but I'm curious what could be done on the torrent side, the technology side...

In the VCR example, even though many people did use it to dupe content illegally, I think there was probably no time where the infringement percentage was anywhere NEAR that!
Old 23rd July 2010
  #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Sorry for requesting free pseudo legal opinion, but what would be a good tact for ensuring legal use of torrents? For example... is there a way to make the torrent enablers responsible for whether the content is legit or not? I can't see a way, but...? Isn't that what DMCA protected, the responsibility (or lack thereof) of the carrier?
the DMCA only protects you if you adhere to the DMCA... it has it's own rules - and in some cases even that may not be protection enough if the service is encouraging infringement, despite adhering to the other DMCA policies and guidelines.

but terry can correct me if I'm wrong (terry, I see you lurking...)
Old 24th July 2010
  #10
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Sorry for requesting free pseudo legal opinion, but what would be a good tact for ensuring legal use of torrents? For example... is there a way to make the torrent enablers responsible for whether the content is legit or not? I can't see a way, but...? Isn't that what DMCA protected, the responsibility (or lack thereof) of the carrier?

I understand there may be things you can do on the end user side, but I'm curious what could be done on the torrent side, the technology side...

In the VCR example, even though many people did use it to dupe content illegally, I think there was probably no time where the infringement percentage was anywhere NEAR that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFF View Post
the DMCA only protects you if you adhere to the DMCA... it has it's own rules - and in some cases even that may not be protection enough if the service is encouraging infringement, despite adhering to the other DMCA policies and guidelines.

but terry can correct me if I'm wrong (terry, I see you lurking...)
After Isohunt especially, it seems that any torrent site is dead in the water. The court suggested that the idea that torrent='where to get infringing content' is so ingrained that a site needs to do little beyond providing search for torrent files to be found to contribute to infringement. Given the inordinate amount of infringing files compared to legitimate files available, it would seem like it would be easier to link to allowed content then to create filters robust enough to escape liability.

In other words, any legitimate use of P2P would probably have to operate on an 'opt-in' principle rather than an 'opt-out' principle: Trackers or search engines would add torrents at the request of companies that want to distribute their content over p2p rather than allowing anyone to add torrents to a tracker or search engine and then trying to filter out infringing content after the fact.

For file locker sites like Rapidshare, while no one has come flat out and said you need to be more proactive then simply removing content after receiving a DMCA notice, that seems to be where the law is trending. One of the factors that favored Rapidshare was that
Quote:
RapidShare cannot locate and delete files where the only information provided is [an] image. However, the Abuse Department was able to find and take down certain files whose download links were identified on the screen shots that Zada attached to his declaration . . . and also proactively searched the third-party websites identified in his declaration, such as filestube.com, and took down any files listed on those sites that appeared to be suspect. In addition, the download links identified in the complaint have also been disabled and the files deleted. The Abuse Department has also begun probatively searching Google and Bing.com for files that may contain the words “RapidShare” and either “Perfect 10” or the names of specific models identified by Zada.
Of course, YouTube was safe despite being that proactive during the time period that was at issue in its suit against Viacom. There doesn't seem to be much argument that it's not doing enough presently - it continues to develop fingerprinting and other technologies to handle identification of infringing materials without the need for content providers to police everything uploaded to the site - but if there's an appeal, the question of what extra steps a site needs to take may get fleshed out more.
Old 24th July 2010
  #11
Lives for gear
 
peeweedrummer's Avatar
 

I think being able to dl torrents is amazing. If it weren't for torrents i would have never heard some of the great new bands i listen to today. it would just be too expensive to buy all different types of cd's to only like 1/10.

also if you are a good band it means that you will have double the crowd singing your song at your concert, and if your crap people know to not waste their money at your gig!

keep torrents legal!
Old 24th July 2010
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by peeweedrummer View Post
I think being able to dl torrents is amazing. If it weren't for torrents i would have never heard some of the great new bands i listen to today. it would just be too expensive to buy all different types of cd's to only like 1/10.

also if you are a good band it means that you will have double the crowd singing your song at your concert, and if your crap people know to not waste their money at your gig!

keep torrents legal!
hahahahaahah lol.
Old 24th July 2010
  #13
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by peeweedrummer View Post
I think being able to dl torrents is amazing. If it weren't for torrents i would have never heard some of the great new bands i listen to today. it would just be too expensive to buy all different types of cd's to only like 1/10.

also if you are a good band it means that you will have double the crowd singing your song at your concert, and if your crap people know to not waste their money at your gig!

keep torrents legal!
I wonder how that works for textbook publishers or TV show producers.

Also, FYI, infringing torrents are not legal. At least not in the US, Japan, or most of Europe. Not sure about Canada or Australia.
Old 24th July 2010
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by peeweedrummer View Post

also if you are a good band it means that you will have double the crowd singing your song at your concert
Like I'm not a band playing concerts.
Secondly, I know bands in Australia, the scene is teeny weeny Peeweedrummer. A national tour for even the best known bands can end in four weeks. What do you do for income the other 48 weeks in the year if you aren't making and selling records?
Old 24th July 2010
  #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Like I'm not a band playing concerts.
Secondly, I know bands in Australia, the scene is teeny weeny Peeweedrummer. A national tour for even the best known bands can end in four weeks. What do you do for income the other 48 weeks in the year if you aren't making and selling records?
can I guess?

you start a studio, charge bands to record, then put their music on torrents so that they can become popular and come back to record again?

I'm sure the bands just LOVE all the extra promotion the studio is doing for them!

http://www.origamistudios.com.au/clients.html


  • Aplonea
  • Top Note Singing Studio
  • Enspier
  • Love Gauge
  • Future Primitive
  • Samadhi
  • The Cities
  • Sarah Carnegie
  • Amplexus
  • The Aviators
  • Mess
  • Never World
  • Tylers Riot
  • The Artaxian Mantra
  • Reflector
  • Porcelain Grace
  • Mansonia
  • Happenstance
  • Flightless
  • Smiley Things
  • Bad Seed Records
  • Sunday Sun
  • Kris Macken
  • Into The Frey
  • Sally Anne Whitten
  • Injettison
  • Lunar Assassins
  • Hi-Fi Reactor
  • Karl Morgan
  • Pied Piper Records
  • Breathing New Life
  • RJ Chops
  • Switch 3
  • Dropmotive
  • The Devoted Few
  • Bryce Jacobs
  • Sonorcast
  • Dreamcaster
  • Rivers End
Old 24th July 2010
  #16
Great list. heh
Old 24th July 2010
  #17
Lives for gear
 
peeweedrummer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Like I'm not a band playing concerts.
Secondly, I know bands in Australia, the scene is teeny weeny Peeweedrummer. A national tour for even the best known bands can end in four weeks. What do you do for income the other 48 weeks in the year if you aren't making and selling records?
I agree that the music industry in aus is small. Thats whats so great about the internet, you can build a following overseas and play in different countries. one of the bands im working with right now is planing to move to the uk.

What do you do for income the other 48 weeks in the year if you aren't making and selling records? I bet most unsigned bands in the U.S are flipping burgers at burger king untill they get their big break.

I personally have many different little jobs that i do to earn money when im not recording bands. I dont like all of them, but thats why its called a job.


in the end of the day if you are good at what you do and have a little bit of business smarts you will find a way to support yourself financially without cd sales.
Old 24th July 2010
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EFF View Post
I've been playing with seeding Rapidshare with Itunes Links.... to replace the DMCA takedowns...
Good idea. But don't forget to also hit megaupload, zshare, etc. It's like multidimensional wack a mole.
Old 24th July 2010
  #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
Good idea. But don't forget to also hit megaupload, zshare, etc. It's like multidimensional wack a mole.
yup.
Old 24th July 2010
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by peeweedrummer View Post
I agree that the music industry in aus is small. Thats whats so great about the internet, you can build a following overseas and play in different countries. one of the bands im working with right now is planing to move to the uk.
Tell them to expect a very rough ride.

Quote:
What do you do for income the other 48 weeks in the year if you aren't making and selling records? I bet most unsigned bands in the U.S are flipping burgers at burger king untill they get their big break.
But your point was the added success the internet (and piracy) brings to the live scene.
My point is the live scene means diddly in Australia.
If you were in America you could play for many months more, without playing the same venue twice.
But how do you afford to move a band to the UK or US.... and keep it going week after week?
Old 24th July 2010
  #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
If you were in America you could play for many months more, without playing the same venue twice.
But how do you afford to move a band to the UK or US.... and keep it going week after week?
bands IN the US can't afford to tour the US... it's just absolutely brutal

adding more venues to play, just adds to the loses of being on the road.

a typical van tour for an indie band loses about $20k about every 5/6 weeks on the road.

it pretty much stays like that until the band has a large enough following to headline larger clubs and small theaters - depending on the market, between 600-1,200 people

opening bands make near nothing and are more/less completely subsidized by label tour support.
Old 24th July 2010
  #22
Lives for gear
 
peeweedrummer's Avatar
 

I can only speak from my own experiance. for example a couple of years ago I had no idea who muse were. one day one of my drum students brings in a song from them to learn. I thought it was a cool song and decided to download the album. when their last album came out I purchased a hard copy and I now also have $150 tickets to their next syd show. cant wait!

I probably would not have gotten into them If I couldn't dl the first album. but out of that they got me hooked!
Old 24th July 2010
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by peeweedrummer View Post
I can only speak from my own experiance. for example a couple of years ago I had no idea who muse were. one day one of my drum students brings in a song from them to learn. I thought it was a cool song and decided to download the album. when their last album came out I purchased a hard copy and I now also have $150 tickets to their next syd show. cant wait!

I probably would not have gotten into them If I couldn't dl the first album. but out of that they got me hooked!
You can't win this argument, by design.
Old 24th July 2010
  #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
You can't win this argument, by design.
Because millions of people 10, 20, 30 years ago discovered bands and ended up buying their albums and seeing them on tour without pirating.
This was before internet radio, MySpace, Twitter, Google, Facebook, internet forums such as Gearslutz, and 24 hour tv (outside the USA).

That's just a fact.
But you still need to DL an album illegally to discover a widely popular band like Muse?
Old 24th July 2010
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Because millions of people 10, 20, 30 years ago discovered bands and ended up buying their albums and seeing them on tour without pirating.
This was before internet radio, MySpace, Twitter, Google, Facebook, internet forums such as Gearslutz, and 24 hour tv (outside the USA).
Think about what you just said. I bolded a bit for you. Not that I agree with piracy, but I think you finally stumbled upon that which many people have argued in these threads for many months now.

Quote:
That's just a fact.
But you still need to DL an album illegally to discover a widely popular band like Muse?
Obviously this wasn't meant for me despite that fact that you're writing a post quoting me.

I think you answered your own question using your own words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso
Secondly, I know bands in Australia, the scene is teeny weeny
Word of mouth, touring, promotion are probably not of the caliber you are referring to in your response at the top. It could very well 100% truth that, despite being a fairly active musician/engineer, that he never heard of the band and was unable to get a proper sampling of their music. Keep in mind I'm only answering the question you posed, not condoning specific actions.
Old 24th July 2010
  #26
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by terryhart View Post
After Isohunt especially, it seems that any torrent site is dead in the water. (snip)
Thanks for your perspective.
Old 24th July 2010
  #27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph View Post
Think about what you just said. I bolded a bit for you. Not that I agree with piracy, but I think you finally stumbled upon that which many people have argued in these threads for many months now.
I don't get you.
So it's never been easier to discover new bands without stealing their work. How am I contradicting the anti-piracy stance?



Quote:
I think you answered your own question using your own words.
Again, your point is too opaque. The poster admitted to downloading the album after discovering the band through a drum student.
He teaches music. If it were me I would have paid for the album or downloaded from iTunes. It's tax deductible you know. I do it all the time. As a musician it's my job to keep up on the latest music, and I can claim expenses for that.


Quote:
It could very well 100% truth that, despite being a fairly active musician/engineer, that he never heard of the band and was unable to get a proper sampling of their music.
You can't find Muse on YouTube, iTunes? You can't buy the album for $9.99 on mainstreet?
Give me a break.
Old 24th July 2010
  #28
Lives for gear
 
gsilbers's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Like I'm not a band playing concerts.
Secondly, I know bands in Australia, the scene is teeny weeny Peeweedrummer. A national tour for even the best known bands can end in four weeks. What do you do for income the other 48 weeks in the year if you aren't making and selling records?
career change? :(
Old 24th July 2010
  #29
Lives for gear
 
gsilbers's Avatar
 

well,, duh!

cant believe anyone thought it was used for ANYTHING legal.
dumb old folks in the film and music biz where just left behind...
oh no. wait.. lets tell the RIAA to sue kids and single mothers for file sharing.. now THATS a great idea... oh , and dont forget to pay them millions, even if they dont get much money in return. heh
(for those who dont understand, im referring to the many articles with comments of network heads and media giants folks embracing bit torrent as a way of getting media to the masses. + RIAA spending millions on lawyers)
Old 25th July 2010
  #30
Trouble is, there's a whole world of action against piracy outside of the RIAA.

Of course they make themselves a cheap shot target for the many online pro-piracy bloggers.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump