> In this context it is not clear which freeloaders you mean
> - the persons that download music and movies that they can not afford now

Certainly most people I know that download illegal media can perfectly well 
afford to pay for it, they just don't see the point in paying for it when 
they can get it for free with almost zero chance of getting caught.

There is always going to be ways to copy media, pirates will always get 
around any encryption or copy protection, the only way to stop people like I 
mention above is to increase the chance of getting caught.

Post a reply to this message

> I'm guessing that with the move to DHT and the take-down of the Pirate 
> Bay, the next step is going to be to decentralize or at least plausibly 
> deny-ify the actual searching. I.e., you won't be able to tell what's in a 
> torrent until you download the torrent.
>
> An easy way to do this would be to have data streams have descriptions of 
> their contents at the start, and have the searchable torrents contain just 
> a bloom filter full of bits.
>
> In other words, the .torrent file would have a name that's the hash of the 
> .torrent file, and a section that has the bloom filter bits for the first 
> file in the torrent data stream. The first file in the torrent data stream 
> would contain the information that you'd be able to search on, like the 
> names of files (i.e., the manifest), the descriptions of the content, the 
> lyrics (for music), and so on. Then, to do a search, you plug in what 
> you're searching for, find the .torrent files with bloom filter bitmaps 
> that match your search terms, then connect to the appropriate sharers to 
> fetch the first few blocks of each matching torrent-data-stream to see 
> what is in the torrent.

Wasn't Google/YouTube forced to actually search for illegal material and 
remove it from search results?  What's to stop the same being enforced on 
any bitTorrent search site with your scheme?

It seems to me the technicalities of how the search is done is not going to 
matter, if it seems like any site is returning lots of links to illegal 
files (no matter how contrived the link process is) then they will be forced 
to remove the links or shut down.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> >   Nowhere, because the music industry does not consider software piracy
> > to be even nearly as bad as music piracy.

> Of course not. Music industry is *music* industry. It's not their fault that
> the *software* industry is not as adamant as protecting their rights as the
> music industry.

  As big of a nitpicker as always, I see.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  The music industry has succeeded in creating a world where a 7yo girl
> > downloading one piece of music from the internet is considered a bigger
> > crime than a company using a piece of utility software illegally to make
> > money.

> It's not the music industry's fault that the software industry does not go 
> after illegal software as vigorously.

  I used the term "music industry" figuratively. I think that should have been
clear from my text, but I suppose not.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de 
news:4a05abba$1@news.povray.org...
> It doesn't have to provide content descriptions to make them usable, is my 
> point.   You can have a search engine search content without knowing what 
> that content is or what you're searching for.  That's what the bloom 
> filters give you.

I still don't understand how that would protect the owners of the search 
engine from litigation. If a user can get a pointer to get some illegal 
content, the party that provided the pointer can be found liable, at least 
if they didn't show due diligence in cleaning up their 
index/tracker/whatever. How would your system work in practice (from a user 
point of view) ?

G.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a06ac5e@news.povray.org...
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> > >  The music industry has succeeded in creating a world where a 7yo girl
> > > downloading one piece of music from the internet is considered a
bigger
> > > crime than a company using a piece of utility software illegally to
make
> > > money.
>
> > It's not the music industry's fault that the software industry does not
go
> > after illegal software as vigorously.
>
>   I used the term "music industry" figuratively. I think that should have
been
> clear from my text, but I suppose not.

"Figuratively", meaning what exactly? What I don't understand is, when the
music/entertainment industry seeks to protect their copyrights, they become
big evil corporate bullies. Yet, you complain that the software industry
does not go the same distance to protect their rights. Many here I assume
are developers, yet vehemently and unexplicably oppose copyrights. Is it a
not-built-here syndrome? Would tables be turned if it were the software
industry that united to protect their rights?

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> What I don't understand

  That's rather clear.

> is, when the
> music/entertainment industry seeks to protect their copyrights, they become
> big evil corporate bullies. Yet, you complain that the software industry
> does not go the same distance to protect their rights. Many here I assume
> are developers, yet vehemently and unexplicably oppose copyrights. Is it a
> not-built-here syndrome? Would tables be turned if it were the software
> industry that united to protect their rights?

  The problem is that *governments* have their priorities all messed up
because certain industries lobby them to overly protect certain things
which are not *that* important, while other, way more important things
don't get almost any (actual) protection at all.

  Governments in many western countries are allowing non-governmental
organizations to act in very governmental ways, such as imposing fines
and taxes on people. These organizations are sometimes doing things which
in a different situation would put them in jail, such as harassing and
extoring people. And all this because of what? Music? And the government
turns the blind eye on this.

  The priorities are completely messed up. There are things which would
need stronger protection much more urgently than some f***ing music. Who
cares about music? Commercial music making could just die, for all I care.
Who would miss it? (Besides, that would certainly not kill music making.
People have been composing music from the dawn of time, without any kind
of protection or monetary incentive.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a06da1b@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

>   The priorities are completely messed up. There are things which would
> need stronger protection much more urgently than some f***ing music. Who
> cares about music? Commercial music making could just die, for all I care.

Curious, do you feel the same way about movies? In any case, I understand
that you don't think being a musician is not a real job, and that music is
worthless. You are of course entitled to your opinion. But the sheer amount
of music piracy, if not sales, indicates that a great majority does not
share your feelings and needs those things. It's a business as any, and
there are all kinds of businesses someone somewhere deems unnecessary. Who
really needs music, TV, movies, computer games,... etc - they are all time
wasters anyway.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Curious, do you feel the same way about movies?

  Making movies is much harder than music, which is why I appreciate movies
more.

> In any case, I understand
> that you don't think being a musician is not a real job, and that music is
> worthless.

  Being a musician is a real job, but it doesn't deserve special protection
which nobody else has.

  For example, someone who composes and directs the soundtrack for a movie
*is* making a real job, and is earning his money directly from what he is
doing (he gets part of the movie's budget in order to do his job).

  Someone who composes music for a videogame is making a real job, making
his part of the whole, and getting a salary for it.

  But why does he deserve a stronger protection than the other people
creating the movie or the videogame?

> You are of course entitled to your opinion. But the sheer amount
> of music piracy, if not sales, indicates that a great majority does not
> share your feelings and needs those things. It's a business as any, and
> there are all kinds of businesses someone somewhere deems unnecessary. Who
> really needs music, TV, movies, computer games,... etc - they are all time
> wasters anyway.

  You still don't understand the concept of priorities, don't you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4a05a9f1$1@news.povray.org...
| pan wrote:
| > Site seems just as operational as before.
| > And - the appeals are yet to be litigated.
|
| You know how I lost my job once? The USA started arresting people in
| countries where online gambling is legal, and suddenly nobody wanted 
to do
| any software for online gambling. Someone with less cajones and fewer
| servers than the pirate bay owners is going to fold a lot easier.
|
| But thanks for missing my point.
|
Easy enough to ignore a supposed point founded on a shaky supposition 
that
pirate bay has been "taken down". Try for accuracy next time and try to 
restrain
from tossing out thundering declarative assumptions.

I didn't ignore the bit about DHT (that's interesting enough not to 
require a
sensationalizing lead in). Your light got smothered by a bushel of 
wishful
thinking. (You would agree that you are blatantly against the tenets and
operations of priate bay, eh?)

Don't bother - you win.

Post a reply to this message