The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?

[matt]

Danish ISP blocks The Pirate Bay

Not sure how well this will work as if the internet has taught us anything it's that when one site is taken down another one (or two or three) will spring up somewhere else

Thoughts?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

If you ask me the shutting down of OINK was like 100 times more significant than this, and all it did was push filesharing more underground. Perhaps bittorrent will go someday but P2P will not go away without some seriously invasive mesaures.

[dubman]

yay for opening up the market to smaller ISPs that can use this to market themselves...

[BeautifulBurnout]

I know that France have banned certain sites too, although I am not sure which ones. As you say, all this will do is to push it more and more underground, but it won't stop people doing it.

On a side note, it never ceases to amaze me how much of my tax goes to pay the policing of these things uniquely to protect the fiscal interests of big business. What about all the unsolved murders, robberies, burglaries? Oh wait. They only happen to "little" people who don't fund political parties...

[Sean]

I have mixed feelings about this stuff. While being able to easily share files is incredibly convenient and fun when used responsibly, it's also being abused to a level that really hurts some people. The singer who gave me my first opportunity to have a couple remixes released did so through her own start-up label. She's an established vocalist who's been featured on tracks by people like A Guy Called Gerald and Dyad10 along with others, with relative hits like last 2001's "Sugar (Sweet Thing)". But when she released her own album and singles last year, which required personal investment and sacrifice, she made no money at all because the releases were immediately made available for free on P2Ps and torrent sites by some jerk-offs. In fact, she lost money and is now probably shutting down the label as a result. On a personal level, the last time I spoke to her, she sounded pretty crushed about it, and is struggling just to make ends meet.

So it's tempting to think that shutting down these file sharing sites is just because big businesses are protecting their fiscal interests, but it's far harder on the little guy based on what I've seen - thanks to the assholes of the world who don't have the common sense or decency to realize how their illegal actions hurt the lives of others.

[mmm skyscraper]

But without technology, your friend would never be able to record/release music anyway. Public performance and merchandise will be the only real way to make money in the future or we can go back to the time before recorded music where comissions were the way to make money.

[chuck]

Oh boy. This debate. It's like abortion and Israel - no-one ever wins.

Currently in NZ there is a bill - that will become law on Feb 27th - Section 92a - which makes ISP's liable for all copyright infringement. And ISP's must terminate internet connections of those suspected of said copyright infringement. No proof is required. No court action is required. Merely allegation.

It's being pushed by APRA, and the record labels - and it's being opposed by many - including artists.

The law is poorly written - on so many levels and ignores a new reality of digital work. One example of how it's badly written is in its very definition of an ISP - it includes any person or organisation that has a website. WTF?

Naturally it opens up a whole can of worms - and of course much controversy. Apart from the sheer insanity of the technology and man hours required to prove an allegation - why would ISP's want to disconnect their clients? It's like holding the government liable for deaths of people on state owned roads.

In NZ it's illegal, under the current law for me to buy a CD - then rip the contents of that CD onto my computer and then load it onto my iPod. The big business side of the recording industry has seen fit to make me purchase a VHS, a DVD, and now a Blu-ray of the same content. Not to mention the number of times Lucas has foisted re-interpratations of the Star Wars trilogies on us.

I love movies, I've bought plenty on VHS and now on DVD, but if I want to watch one of the movies I already own on MY portable player - I have to go out and buy (PSP) or pay to download another copy (via iTunes)- of the same thing? That's a bit shit when I'll even do the re-encoding myself to save you the work.

I have to disagree on one of your points Sean - imo - this is not an issue of theft. Theft is if I take something that belongs to you - and you no longer have it. If I torrent a copy of your remix - you still have the remix. This is an issue of fair use and who is compensated for created content. I'm all for fair use and fair compensation - but this issue of piracy isn't exactly Johnny Depp and the pirates of Barbary.

I mean - here in NZ - not only is the definition flawed - but the language is inflammatory and ridiculous. This is the pdf - that got sent out to schools by NZFACT. Can you actually read that and not chuckle at the OTT-ness of it all?

If you use peer-to-peer file-sharing services, you risk breaking the law, downloading a serious computer virus, sharing your personal data, which can lead to identity theft, and getting exposed to pornographic materials.

Yes - if you use P2P technology you could be exposed to pornographic material!!!! aaarrghh.... as opposed to, you know, turning on the news.

If I go to a library and borrow an author's book - read it, then put it back, am I in breach of copyright? Is the next person who borrows that book? Is the rate-payer funded library liable?

If I go and look at a painting hanging in a public gallery, decide I like it - then buy a copy of that painting as a postcard, then download a copy of that painting to use as my desktop - at which point do I break copyright? Is it when I downloaded the image using bittorrent? Or was it when I scanned the postcard into my computer? Or was it if I took out my cellphone and took a picture of the painting?

As a teacher, I will be in breach of the law in NZ when I show a youtube video, such as . That is the BBC's content - not mine.

I have friends who've been screwed over by record labels, and have then gone on to do done damn well licensing their music - and selling it online. There's Radiohead, there's NIN, there's the Python's cleaning up - after they setup their own youtube channel.

And has been said - all it does is push filesharing further underground - another protocol or co-located host will be setup. I mean - wasn't the victory over Napster meant to save the music industry? They poured millions of dollars into that fight - and then expect us to go out and pay for Girls Aloud and yet another Hannah Montana compilation?

Lawrence Lessig, the people over at Creative Commons, the EFF - there are sane people discussing this issue. IMHO - they need to be listened too.

[Sean]

There's no debate as far as I'm concerned. Enforce reasonable laws against the people who illegally share music files. But to pretend that stealing music from an artist hurts no one is ignorance at best, maliciousness at worst.

Chuck - what if suddenly your students stole their lessons from you for free, so there was no way for you to be paid for teaching? Would it be cool with you to hear people say "hey - the future of teaching is writing and selling books, not teaching in a classroom".

[chuck]

Originally Posted by Sean

There's no debate as far as I'm concerned.

Unfortunately - the debate has to be had here in NZ - it's been shaped/forced through by the record labels/big business. They blatantly attack the technology as the reason for piracy - read the quote I reference above - IF you use p2p - YOU WILL get infected with viruses etc, etc. The wording of the new law is insanity - and leaves the door wide open for businesses, libraries, schools all to be cut off the Net - under the accusation of guilt.

How do they prove who's downloaded what? Under the NZ law - they don't have to prove it, the ISP must terminate the connection, if they receive notice that a user has been downloading illegal content. No proof, no court case, and the user has no way to defend themselves against the charge - because you don't have to provide evidence.

Under this legislation wireless hotspots - like in Starbucks or the airport will have to be shut down, regardless of the fact that you can't prove who's downloaded what. I have a wireless point at home - how can I prove it's not been hacked by the neighbour, who's then downloaded the latest episode of Heroes.

What if an artist wants to download their own music - from a torrent site - how do they prove their the author/creator of that content. They can be cut off.

If you taped a copy of Heroes or BSG for me in the US - then mailed me the cd or the vhs tape - because it won't screen in NZ for another month - who's broken copyright?

Some good discussion here and here.

The debate is being led by certain interests here in NZ (and possibly around the globe) - and the majority of our parlimentarians are ignorant of the implications - or the consequences of a simple black and white solution.

Besides, all it's going to take is several letters of complaint to the ISP's that supply Parliament for them to realise how insane this legislation is.

Chuck - what if suddenly your students stole their lessons from you for free, so there was no way for you to be paid for teaching? Would it be cool with you to hear people say "hey - the future of teaching is writing and selling books, not teaching in a classroom".

Um - well, I give away my lessons for free, as I work in a public school. The government pays me - it's a social good/social contract kind of thing. Taxes pay my wages - just like they pay the wages of the police, the nurses, doctors, garbage collectors. I assume that my students are going to take my ideas, add them to their own experiences, combine them with the teachers, coaches and family that they have around them as they grow up and then create, design, build, write their own ideas.

NO teacher works in a vacuum - all teachers will use, reuse, reshape ideas.

I use the internet and content on the net to inform and put together the majority of my lessons. I expect my students to do the same - there's a case that could be made for leaving them all at home and telling them to use google to learn. There are dozens of websites where you can download worksheets, pdfs, lesson plans - many set up by teachers. Most homeschooling parents will do the same.

Most teachers don't expect to make money off their lesson plans, but they are their intellectual property - and so if I started putting my materials up online, I'd slap a Creative Commons notice on them - just as I do on my flickr page.

If you're talking about making knowledge propietary and enforcing copyright of ideas - that's another topic. There is grounds for it I guess - but if you look up iTunes U - or MIT's Open courseware or even TED - knowledge is getting more open, more available and oddly enough, the majority of it is FREE.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by chuck

Unfortunately - the debate has to be had here in NZ - it's been shaped/forced through by the record labels/big business. They blatantly attack the technology as the reason for piracy - read the quote I reference above - IF you use p2p - YOU WILL get infected with viruses etc, etc. The wording of the new law is insanity - and leaves the door wide open for businesses, libraries, schools all to be cut off the Net - under the accusation of guilt.

I'm fully in agreement with you that this is too extreme.

Originally Posted by chuck

Um - well, I give away my lessons for free, as I work in a public school. The government pays me - it's a social good/social contract kind of thing. Taxes pay my wages - just like they pay the wages of the police, the nurses, doctors, garbage collectors. I assume that my students are going to take my ideas, add them to their own experiences, combine them with the teachers, coaches and family that they have around them as they grow up and then create, design, build, write their own ideas.

NO teacher works in a vacuum - all teachers will use, reuse, reshape ideas.

I use the internet and content on the net to inform and put together the majority of my lessons. I expect my students to do the same - there's a case that could be made for leaving them all at home and telling them to use google to learn. There are dozens of websites where you can download worksheets, pdfs, lesson plans - many set up by teachers. Most homeschooling parents will do the same.

Most teachers don't expect to make money off their lesson plans, but they are their intellectual property - and so if I started putting my materials up online, I'd slap a Creative Commons notice on them - just as I do on my flickr page.

If you're talking about making knowledge propietary and enforcing copyright of ideas - that's another topic. There is grounds for it I guess - but if you look up iTunes U - or MIT's Open courseware or even TED - knowledge is getting more open, more available and oddly enough, the majority of it is FREE.

I wasn't actually presenting that as a literal and 100% accurate hypothetical. My point is simply that very few people could afford to do a job that didn't give them the necessary capital to simply get the job off the ground, or even costs them money in the process. Musicians need some measure of return on a release in order to get a tour and merchandising off the ground. If all they get is financial losses with each release, and no way to measure the release's success, then the tour and merchandising simply cannot follow. If you had to pay to be a teacher, you probably couldn't afford to be one.