Bittorent sells out!

[Taem]

I usually never start more than one topic in a month - if that - so this, being my third topic in less than two-weeks, is kind of new territory for me. Nonetheless, at the risk of looking like an attention hog, I will proceed to post this information I'd like to share and that I feel is important.

The creator of Bittorent has sold out to the MPAA, but was he justified or pressured into blocking links to known pirate sites? From what I've heard, Bram Cohen is a strong advocate of file sharing and freedom of rights, however after several lawsuits against Bittorent, I can't help but feel Bram was coerced into this contract deal with the MPAA.

What does that mean for the little guy? Not much in terms of what you download or where you download from, however IMO this is the first step in squashing our rights with file-sharing. Remember when Kazaa sold out and started charging for it's music downloads? Sure it's different because they hosted a centralized tracker, but the media industry has been searching for a crack in Bittorents wall with which they can inject their own schemes to make money. With Bittorent being the largest P2P software used worldwide, it's no wonder so many agencies are scrambling to sue Bittorent!

This will be the decade our liberal rights took a dive, from Homeland Security, to P2P monitoring, to stipulations on having children in Indiana, etc. All your rights are belong to us!

[Occhidiangela]

The creator of Bittorent has sold out to the MPAA, but was he justified or pressured into blocking links to known pirate sites? From what I've heard, Bram Cohen is a strong advocate of file sharing and freedom of rights, however after several lawsuits against Bittorent, I can't help but feel Bram was coerced into this contract deal with the MPAA.

This will be the decade our liberal rights took a dive, from Homeland Security, to P2P monitoring, to stipulations on having children in Indiana, etc. All your rights are belong to us!
[right][snapback]95616[/snapback][/right]

Not everyone who uses P2P steals, and not everyone who uses P2P doesn't steal. Both of these statements are true.

Were P2P an interaction where anyone could count on the integrity of the average person not being corruptible by the impulse for theft and greed, or exploited by the billions who are by their cultural predilections contextual thieves, P2P would not be threatened by the counterforces. Sadly, human nature being what it is, Lars of Metallica was right: Napster and other P2P tools encouraged outright theft, regardless of their utility for legal and legit interactions.

Your first step in countering the perceived threat to the independent man is to buy a brown duster.
Brown Coat 10 oz oilskin
Brown Coat 12 oz oilskin Duster

Or, go to Browncoats.com and consider how to keep flying. ;)

Burn the land
Boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

Occhi

[Taem]

Napster and other P2P tools encouraged outright theft, regardless of their utility for legal and legit interactions.
[right][snapback]95637[/snapback][/right]

This is true, however I was looking at the situation more towards a Big Brother type scenario with all of our downloads off the net being monitored. I see this situation as the stepping stone towards breaking P2P and the only way I can foresee P2P being controlled is if an entity monitors everyone’s internet downloads. I know I'm assuming a lot here but I see our freedom dwindling everywhere I look and I fear this is only the beginning. I don’t know, perhaps I am being a wee bit paranoid over nothing, but this feels like something more to me and I just can't put my finger on it.

EDIT - After thought: If someone who strongly advocated freedom of rights was swayed to change his ways, then it seems obvious to me that these entities will stop at nothing to gain control. When will they have the amount of "control" they deem necessary to feel comfortable and sleep safely at night? Is there an end to what can be deemed your, ours, and mine within the confines of freedom? I guess perhaps that is what is bothering me.

[Occhidiangela]

This is true, however I was looking at the situation more towards a Big Brother type scenario with all of our downloads off the net being monitored. I see this situation as the stepping stone towards breaking P2P and the only way I can foresee P2P being controlled is if an entity monitors everyone’s internet downloads. I know I'm assuming a lot here but I see our freedom dwindling everywhere I look and I fear this is only the beginning. I don’t know, perhaps I am being a wee bit paranoid over nothing, but this feels like something more to me and I just can't put my finger on it.

EDIT - After thought: If someone who strongly advocated freedom of rights was swayed to change his ways, then it seems obvious to me that these entities will stop at nothing to gain control. When will they have the amount of "control" they deem necessary to feel comfortable and sleep safely at night? Is there an end to what can be deemed your, ours, and mine within the confines of freedom? I guess perhaps that is what is bothering me.
[right][snapback]95663[/snapback][/right]

Freedom of rights mean nothing if you don't fight for them. The copyright folks are fighting hard for their rights. The P2P "rights" seem to have few advocates with the same backbone. I read the link and think, from a law of commerce perspective, the Bittorrent fella stole a march on the lawsuit happy folks.

This is not a one sided issue, as the copyright holders have a vested interest in not being stolen from. A thorny problem, and I share some of your feeling that this is yetanother place for Big Brother to get his fingers into places they don't truly belong.

Occhi

[eppie]

Although I don't know what P2P means and I have never used bittorrent, I'm getting a bit sick of all these lawsuits against filesharing.
Legally those record companies have jusatice on their side.....but that is just because the laws about these things are bad.

The music industry and MTV have youth in a kind of grasp so that they buy records of all these talentless artists, many of whom, are drug addicts, alcoholics or gangsters.....and somehow this seems normal. At the same time MTV televises (at least in europe) so many programs that all have to do with sex (but of course you don't see anything), while in a music video, every word that is a bit bad is replaced by this anoying beep....I mean who are they kidding. They only show videos with naked and half naked women but somebody can not say "#$%&"...something that is even allowed here on the lounge. So not only do MTV and the music industry try to get the money out of the pockets of young people...they also try to keep them ignorant.....and if you look around yopu, it pretty much works... :blink:

Yes MTV is evil....more so than sony.....


(sorry for the bad writing style but I'm to angry to write correctly)

eppie

[Fragbait]

I don't know what P2P means [...] MTV have youth in a kind of grasp so that they buy records of all these talentless artists[right][snapback]95689[/snapback][/right]

Hi,

P2P means: peer to peer, that means from one internet user to another and stands for the main principle behind filesharing wikipedia: p2p.

To the MTV-blame I just say: Blame the parents. If they apparently are too unconcerned to educate their children, restrict their access to money and teach them other fun activities than watching telly, than that's their fault. If you think MTV has your child 'in a grasp', then maybe you don't concern yourself too much with him/her? It's a question of supply and demand. If lascivious videos help to sell records, then that's a perfectly correct method to apply. Teach your kid the difference between that and reality, and you won't have to worry about it anymore. Then go out and play table tennis with him/her, have some fun.

Greetings, Fragbait

[eppie]

Hi,

P2P means: peer to peer, that means from one internet user to another and stands for the main principle behind filesharing wikipedia: p2p.

Thanks, I should bookmark that page.

To the MTV-blame I just say: Blame the parents. If they apparently are too unconcerned to educate their children, restrict their access to money and teach them other fun activities than watching telly, than that's their fault. If you think MTV has your child 'in a grasp', then maybe you don't concern yourself too much with him/her? It's a question of supply and demand. If lascivious videos help to sell records, then that's a perfectly correct method to apply. Teach your kid the difference between that and reality, and you won't have to worry about it anymore. Then go out and play table tennis with him/her, have some fun.

Greetings, Fragbait
[right][snapback]95691[/snapback][/right]

Theoretically you are right of course....but which parent has so much influence on his/her teenager.....I think one of the definitions of adolescence is doing your own things, and thinking that everything your parents tell you to do is wrong.

And I think there are few people that are more intelligent (to resist) than the batallion of MTV spin doctors that try everything to sell everything to kids.

[Daravos]

The music industry and MTV have youth in a kind of grasp so that they buy records of all these talentless artists, many of whom, are drug addicts, alcoholics or gangsters.....and somehow this seems normal. At the same time MTV televises (at least in europe) so many programs that all have to do with sex (but of course you don't see anything), while in a music video, every word that is a bit bad is replaced by this anoying beep....I mean who are they kidding. They only show videos with naked and half naked women but somebody can not say "#$%&"...something that is even allowed here on the lounge. So not only do MTV and the music industry try to get the money out of the pockets of young people...they also try to keep them ignorant.....and if you look around yopu, it pretty much works... :blink:
[right][snapback]95689[/snapback][/right]

I can see what you're saying here, Eppie. And it's like that here in Canada with MuchMusic as well.

As FragBait stated, yes, the Music Industry does target teens. And I also agree that the parents should first LISTEN to some of the music that thier kids want.

Heck, my folks did. I remember when I first wanted a Guns and Roses tape and I'd asked dad if he'd get it for me.

Sure, he bought it... but as soon as we got home, he listened to it (away from me, mind you), and I never saw that tape again for a couple years. I think I was 14 or 15 when I finally got the tape. Sure, I had to wait, but I loved the fact that my parents took an interest in what I was listening to and took the time to make sure it was appropriate for me.

However, the same thing also can apply to games these days. If and when I do have kids of my own, I can promise that I'll be checking out games/music/tv shows ahead of time no matter what the rating is and seeing if it's appropriate.

True, I did find it stupid when the ESRB Rating System first came out, but now, I understand why and it will be a valuable tool down the road.

But anyhow... Back on topic here... P2P.

I have, personally, on occasion used P2P to "evaluate" games for a few days before I go out and blow $50 to $80 on them. And to be quite honest... Most that I have tried, I ended up deleting anyhow because I didn't particularly like it. And in the few odd cases where I DID enjoy it... I ended up buying the game and supporting the company, because I felt they were deserving of my hard earned cash.

Same goes for music. There's been a couple CD's I've bought because I had the opportunity to see what it was like ahead of time.

*shrugs* Sorry bout the reminiscing there.

[yangman]

I don't see Cohen's move as a particularily bad one for the P2P community at large. In fact, I think it gives BT a sense of legitimacy that does not come with crippling penalties.

The thing to remember here is that BitTorrent is a protocol, not a service. No matter what happens to bittorrent.com, BitTorrent itself will be more or less unaffected.

[DeeBye]

The thing to remember here is that BitTorrent is a protocol, not a service. No matter what happens to bittorrent.com, BitTorrent itself will be more or less unaffected.
[right][snapback]95748[/snapback][/right]

Ding ding ding! Cohen's role in bittorrent is pretty much irrelevant at this point. He created the protocol, and now his job is done. The protocol is out there and is being used by others to create their own bittorrent clients. Azereus, BitTornado, BitComet, uTorrent are all so vastly superior to the "official" bittorrent client that no matter what Cohen does to change it, the current state of P2P via bittorrent will not change one iota.