http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10166 RIP Suprnova.org. One of the best sources of Bit Torrent links has been taken out by the corporate greed and vicious lawyers of the MPAA/RIAA mafia. Hooray.
i'm always amused by statements like this. let's not get up on too high a horse, huh? perhaps as little as one tenth of one percent of torrents out there are not gross violations of the law. you can disagree with the law, but it's not the MPAA/RIAA's fault - petition your legislature - they're the guys running the show now. if you don't like the laws, there are means of redress, though they do take a long time. but while you're petitioning, do think hard about the economic effects on the content creators (the actual musicians and writers and tactors and directors - not the shortsighted distribution companies. why not just use freenet? it is in fact pure evil as it concerns bit-based IP rights, but it's exactly what the MPAA/RIAA "mafia" is pushing things to the logical conclusion of: a pure peer-to-peer network with impenetrable security. once someone figures out how to search it and gets folks mass-access to it, all bit-based IP rights effectively dissolve. it's very sad that it's going to come to that, but it was an entirely foreseeable conclusion to a chain of events that started way before the geniuses shut napser down. it falls into the "be careful what you wish for" caregory if you ask me. "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." doody.
Thanks for your views. Frankly, I don't give a crap about the law in this case, as I feel it is an unjust law, influenced by big money passing under the table in brown envelopes. I respect intellectual property, which is why the only things I used to d/l were shows like Southpark which I *cannot* legitimately get in Singapore because they are banned from TV and the DVD stores. The freedom of the internet is the perfect defense to the tyranny of censorship. Where I could buy things legitimately, I did. In any case, if you study the economics of the RIAA's distribution model you'll realise how grossly unfair it is to the buying public and the talent producing the music. Not only that, but the bloody RIAA thinks it can demand anything it wants and instantly get it, no matter how outrageous it seems on the face of it. I'm sure you're aware that the RIAA already collects a royalty on every blank CD-R you purchase, just on the off-chance you're going to pirate something ? If that's the case, why all the continued prosecution of pirates ? Why not pledge to drop the royaly once piracy is better controlled (and the RIAA cannot deny that there are less pirates now that they've started going after them) ? You see, the RIAA is such a big pirate by itself that it wants to have its cake and eat it. The royalties will continue no matter what. Shameful. Freeenet is slow at the moment. But it's an excellent way to get torrents going, since you only need to d/l around 35 k of the media file before you can connect to the tracker and start going it on your own. What I find most disconcerting is that the legal system of the USA has seemingly caved in to the demands of the big money RIAA/MPAA lobby at every juncture. Want the DMCA ? No prob. Want to shut down file servers ? No prob. Want to hunt down file sharers by tracking private data ? No prob. Want to maliciously flood P2P networks while fully protected by law ? No prob. See where this is going ? Sooner or later, if a perfect system with complete anonymity ever emerges, it can just be shut down in toto by the law acting under pressure from the money lobby. There is no escape, unless we take a stand right now.
Didn't know this difference. Interesting. As far as politics go, I admit the RIAA isn't my favourite corporation, but I understand them. Things are moving, in a bad way for them, they're trying to protect what they built. This being said I chose whose CDs I buy, and who I download. And if I like an artist and really want to contribute to helping him pay his bills, I'll go to a show. That's how they earn most of their money anyways (if my infos are right).
I know that the original tax had been imposed only for CDRs labelled "music" but I was under the impression that that had been extended to all CDRs. But I could be wrong. That would still mean that if I owned a legit copy of a CD and I wanted to make another copy for my own personal use (backup or playing in my car, for example) I am in effect paying additional royalties to the Great Satan (RIAA) for the privilege of doing so. This is despite the fact that it is legal for a consumer to make such a copy for personal use and nowhere is there mention of an additional charge for such an action. Besides, there is even a 3 % royalty on every CD recorder sold. That makes no distinction b/w music pirating and legitimate data backup. How do you like them apples ? One more thing, I was made aware of a music station that played the music of an artiste (with their permission) but got sued by the RIAA. The artiste was evidently not "registered" with the RIAA. Apparently, if you want to broadcast music now, you need to pay money to the almighty RIAA even if the artistes you're broadcasting aren't signed by them. You can't even broadcast your own music without RIAA permission !! This weirdness apparently arises from the way in which RIAA collects its royalties, by just taking a regular paycheck from the big name music distribution companies. That supposedly entitles them to control the free flow of *all* music on the radio. The RIAA are dishonest pigs, no matter how you choose to look at it.
Yup, technology has leapfrogged this dinosaur and it's not liking it. Listen to streaming web radio so you don't contribute to the the RIAA. Go with an iPod or buy harddisk-based car systesm so you don't contribute to the RIAA. Download legal music from the web to support artists you like but don't contribute to the RIAA. Go to concerts to support artists you like but don't contribute to the RIAA. The whole RIAA and 800 layers of middlemen malarkey is completely outdated.
The RIAA is necessary because the musicians property still needs to be protected by an organization with the muscle and clout to keep it protected. The RIAA doesnt care about the joe schmoe who just downloads a track every so often, they care about the people downloading hundreds upon thousands of tracks and then SHARING them. I disagree with the theft of intellectual property and I use iTunes to make sure that I pay for the products I use. For those I cannot find on iTunes, I will P2P then, and then when they become available, I will purchase them from iTunes. Not because I care about the RIAA or their profits, but because I know what it is like to have things I have created stolen (from my design days).
DAMN!!!! That was close! I just finished a 7 gig download yesterday that took a damn WEEK!! Oh well that was the first and now the last time I ever used them. Seemed cool though.
And there you are in violation of the letter of the law (if not the spirit). The RIAA will still get you regardless of whether you (honestly) proclaim you were going to pay for the stuff eventually. Please don't defend these azzholes (the RIAA). There has to be a better and more honest way of protecting artistes. Besides, you can show support for artistes in other ways, including going to their shows every time (because most of the money from shows goes into their pockets ...at least until the RIAA decides it wants a bigger cut of that as well).
Correct, every time I get a song from a P2P network that is owned by someone, I violate the law. Wasnt suggesting otherwise. Again, the RIAA is targeting those who SHARE, not download. They are picking their fights and have done a good job doing so. I will defend them because they are simply protecting the copyrights of the owners. Nothing wrong or dishonest about it. The RIAA doesnt automatically get a cut of every recording artist. Recording artists REGISTER with the RIAA for the RIAA to PROTECT their copyrights just like they register with BMG/ASCAP to collect royalties.
Actually, you do make a good point. The RIAA is indeed trying to protect copyright, which isn't a bad thing. But it's the hyporcrisy that gets to me. The outmoded distribution system the RIAA swears by inflates costs unfairly for the consumer, and the huge profit margin is pocketed by the recording industry. The artistes see little of this, relatively speaking. While I don't have a problem with protection of copyright, I do take exception to thuggish techniques in enforcing it. The RIAA often ends up infringing upon the rights of innocents in so doing, as in the case of the radio station that was unfairly sued for playing unregistered artistes, and the blanket tax on CDRs and recorders. There is really no honest justification for these things. Hey, if they clean up their act, embrace the new modes of media distribution (instead of fighting them at every turn) while paring their profit margins to a more reasonable level, and give the artistes their fair share of the profits, I might actually begin to respect them.
