Why don't the feds/major copywrite holders destroy (public) torrents?

[Case Sensitive]

By simply making hundreds of connections...expensive for bandwidth yes...but surely cheaper than legal fees and lost revenue. Monitoring trackers for recently upped files with few seeders then basically leeching the fuck out of it with multiple connections...why don't they do this? Is there a reason it wouldn't be at least partially effective? I sent an email to CRIA suggesting it...hope there isn't something obvious I'm missing.

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

You sent them an email? You traitor!

[iMagiNation]

Because the jews.

[DarkMage35]

Originally Posted by Case Sensitive

I sent an email to CRIA suggesting it...

BURN THE TRAITOR!

The three things you are missing:

(a) It would just provoke further development of peerguardian-like programs

(b) The copyright deal is broken. Perpetual (or close enough) is wrong, and actually inhibits the creation of new stuff.

(c) You sent an email to the CRIA. Canada. Blank media levy ring any bells? Its been tested in court if I remember right.

[zuperxtreme]

If they download copyright work, then they're infringing also.
They make more money suing everything with an IP
They're fucking morons. ^^

[LSA King]

What would be ironic is if someone manage to grab the RIAA/MPAA and other copyright organizations IP's and file a lawsuit against them for attempt to infringe on copyright laws. Of course it would probably never hold up, just another example of the double standard since the only way they can accurately view the IP's in the swarm is to be apart of the swarm.

[Eridani]

Originally Posted by Case Sensitive

I sent an email to CRIA suggesting it...hope there isn't something obvious I'm missing.

Why would you do that, what the fuck's it got to do with you? Fucking rat (not that anyone would pay you any attention but jeez...)

[Case Sensitive]

Hard working musicians lose millions of dollars from people stealing...stealing music from online is no different from stealing CDs in a store.

[zuperxtreme]

Originally Posted by Case Sensitive

Hard working musicians lose millions of dollars from people stealing...stealing music from online is no different from stealing CDs in a store.

[YOUTUBE]Fw-MFeR8Frw[/YOUTUBE]

[slickt0mmy]

The way I see it, regarding downloading movies, it's no different than borrowing the DVD from a friend, watching it, then returning it.

I never keep the movie stored on my HDD after I watch it. If I did, my drive would have been full many years ago. So if I download it, watch it, then delete it, I don't see how the copyright fanatics can even make an argument.

As far as music, yeah I keep it, obviously. Refer to the wonderful film posted above as to why I feel fine doing that.
The majority of the music I download, I would never pay for. I just download it because I'm bored and feel like hearing something new. But every once in a while I'll find a band I think is truly great and I will support them by attending a show, buying their merchandise, or even buying the cd that I previously downloaded.

[GreatToKnow]

Originally Posted by Case Sensitive

By simply making hundreds of connections...expensive for bandwidth yes...but surely cheaper than legal fees and lost revenue. Monitoring trackers for recently upped files with few seeders then basically leeching the fuck out of it with multiple connections...why don't they do this? Is there a reason it wouldn't be at least partially effective? I sent an email to CRIA suggesting it...hope there isn't something obvious I'm missing.

Yep because its better to pay $20 for a crap piece of plastic?
get a life. Torrents are good and people like you put file sharing in danger.

I punch snitches like you in the balls and steal your lunch money and sleep with your wife

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by slickt0mmy

The way I see it, regarding downloading movies, it's no different than borrowing the DVD from a friend, watching it, then returning it.

I never keep the movie stored on my HDD after I watch it. If I did, my drive would have been full many years ago. So if I download it, watch it, then delete it, I don't see how the copyright fanatics can even make an argument.

As far as music, yeah I keep it, obviously. Refer to the wonderful film posted above as to why I feel fine doing that.
The majority of the music I download, I would never pay for. I just download it because I'm bored and feel like hearing something new. But every once in a while I'll find a band I think is truly great and I will support them by attending a show, buying their merchandise, or even buying the cd that I previously downloaded.

I agree with you.

Yet, the problem is, that it leads to dumbding down of mainstream music.

Let me explain.

Any smart person, and smart people often have better taste, would find your argument reasonable. So they wouldn't be spending as much money on music, since they would only pay for what they actually find awesome.
So the producers are thinking, "Why should we sign this awesome band and promote it, when it won't generate much revenue anyway? It would appeal to intelligent people with good taste in music, and unless it really, really 'clicks' with them, they probably wouldn't be paying much. Sounds like a very high risk investment. Why don't I sign this girl that looks like a hoe instead, the music is dumb and catchy, and will appeal to the brain-dead morons who don't even know what a torrent is."

Don't you think this could be at least partly the reason why mainstream music has been so shit in the 00s, espeically after around 2003-2004?
Don't get me wrong, it was never that great, but compare what we had in the second half of this decade with the 90s, the 80s, not to mention the 70s and the 60s.

Do you think this theory has any merit?

[Case Sensitive]

If you think it cost too much don't listen to it.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by zuperxtreme

[YOUTUBE]Fw-MFeR8Frw[/YOUTUBE]

Goofy fucking song, but I'm a big fan of the artist. Go watch Sita Sings The Blues. Besides being fucking insane, there's an interesting interview on there about the copyright hell she went through with the 70 year old music for the film. That's right, music that is so old that everyone associated with it is DEAD. And it's still copyright hell.


Copyright bullshit drives me nuts. Probably the best and simplest way of showing what's wrong with the RIAA/CIRA/etc... way of doing things is to shine a light on the last Nine Inch Nails album. They gave it away for free, and still made more money off of it than any of their previous albums.

Of course, free distribution (via youtube) is how Justin Beiber got famous, so it's not a universally good thing.

And don't get me started on the MPAA. Those bastards keep whining about how p2p is killing the industry, while posting record profits. Wolverine is a great example. It got leaked, and that only encouraged people to go to the theaters.

Let's not forget the assloads of legit stuff that gets passed around through p2p networks. That's how Blizzard passes around all their DLC for Starcraft II. That's how facebook updates their servers. That's how a million garage bands get their stuff out to the world. That's how the wikileaks insurance file (a hilarious story in and of itself) got out and is sitting on a million hard drives scaring the shit out of a half dozen governments.

I could go on and on...

[sepht]

Originally Posted by zuperxtreme

[YOUTUBE]Fw-MFeR8Frw[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]up863eQKGUI[/YOUTUBE]

[komokazi]

Shitty troll is shitty.

[Giomanach]

Because the seeders will cut off the connections to their IPs.

[ayingerbrau]

It's in nobodies best interests to "ban" torrents and so forth. The increased exposure to movies and music just means more people eventually go out and go to support the artists, or film industry by buying their DVDs or CDs, etc...

The bands themselves know that increased exposure will lead to more sales of concert tickets. Many artists now post most of their videos on YouTube, directly to see, at no cost. This exposure allows them to sell more gig tickets. I was recently at Wembley Stadium to see a Muse gig. There was 100,000 people there, all paying £50 a ticket. That's £5 million revenue from one night. That's excluding merchandise and so forth. They were playing two nights I think, so that is at least £10 million made from those two concerts. That's the kind of revenue gained from selling roughly one million albums (and remember the band would only take a small cut of that revenue). Remember as well, that Muse will tour many different places, probably selling millions of tickets in a year. This is where the money is made. The only interests in destroying torrents is from the recording industries as they make all the money from album sales. The same applies to films. However, the increased exposure is still making that business side of things very profitable.

The ISPs come into it as well. ISPs could severely throttle (and some do) BitTorrent speeds, this will be due to action from that countries government, an individual companies "mission statement" or other such "action". However, ISPs will never completely halt BitTorrent traffic, as it is reported that the vast majority of bandwith sold is used to download files over the BitTorrent network. Many ISPs do not bother throttling BitTorrent speeds as they are quite happy for people to pay top dollar for high internet speeds.

- http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Bad_ISPs

The above link showcases ISPs in individual countries that throttle the BitTorrent traffic. You'll hear crackdowns on illegal file sharing, but it will never happen. BitTorrent itself is not to blame anyway, they can't really ban that technology, it has perfectly legitamite uses, see www.legittorrents.info for more on this. However, indexing sites such as ThePirateBay are often targeted due to copyright laws and the files that they index. Nothing ever gets done though as their is always a loophole. The owners of TPB basically laugh in the face of the orgranisations that are trying to stop "piracy" another "war" which we will never stop hearing about, just like the war on terror, and drugs.

[Irukanji]

Originally Posted by Case Sensitive

Hard working musicians lose millions of dollars from people stealing...stealing music from online is no different from stealing CDs in a store.

Nobody loses. That why these musicians have multi-million dollar homes, cars, etc. You don't even have to be a good singer any more. People won't suddenly buy the music because they can't download it, they will just not listen to it. That "$1 billion dollars" in lost profit was PROFIT. They still made enough to cover expenses. Underground music does it for the fact they can make music, not for the money.

Originally Posted by Case Sensitive

If you think it cost too much don't listen to it.

See above.

shitty troll is shitty.

Also, BAMP!

[TheDarkRodent]

Originally Posted by Case Sensitive

Hard working musicians lose millions of dollars from people stealing...stealing music from online is no different from stealing CDs in a store.

You are an idiot who has no idea of the breakdown of the way money is made in music. The artists makes maybe 1 or 2 dollars max of the sale of each CD. They make the majority of their income from live performances, selling paraphernalia (Tshirts and such), and other revenue related to live appearances. If their music is widely distributed via electronic media they get more exposure to potential concert goers who have more disposable income to attend the concert because they did not waste their money making the record label a fortune.

Originally Posted by SHODAN

I agree with you.

Yet, the problem is, that it leads to dumbding down of mainstream music.

Let me explain.

Any smart person, and smart people often have better taste, would find your argument reasonable. So they wouldn't be spending as much money on music, since they would only pay for what they actually find awesome.
So the producers are thinking, "Why should we sign this awesome band and promote it, when it won't generate much revenue anyway? It would appeal to intelligent people with good taste in music, and unless it really, really 'clicks' with them, they probably wouldn't be paying much. Sounds like a very high risk investment. Why don't I sign this girl that looks like a hoe instead, the music is dumb and catchy, and will appeal to the brain-dead morons who don't even know what a torrent is."

Don't you think this could be at least partly the reason why mainstream music has been so shit in the 00s, espeically after around 2003-2004?
Don't get me wrong, it was never that great, but compare what we had in the second half of this decade with the 90s, the 80s, not to mention the 70s and the 60s.

Do you think this theory has any merit?

You may be on to something there but the recording industry should have jumped on the digital band wagon in the mid 90's. I can remember getting pirated MP3's online as early as 1994. Had the recording industry reacted with something like ITunes in the beginning they could have "trained" the masses to switch from the brick and mortar record stores to digital shopping much easier and with a much greater conversion ratio.

But they were dinosaurs who refused to change with the times on time. Compare that with the software industry who was born, breast fed, and weaned in the age of piracy and you will see the difference between the tow models of approach and how the software industry succeed as a result of piracy rather than in spite of it.

[Hi-Guy]

Originally Posted by Case Sensitive

By simply making hundreds of connections...expensive for bandwidth yes...but surely cheaper than legal fees and lost revenue. Monitoring trackers for recently upped files with few seeders then basically leeching the fuck out of it with multiple connections...why don't they do this? Is there a reason it wouldn't be at least partially effective? I sent an email to CRIA suggesting it...hope there isn't something obvious I'm missing.

Something similar to what MediaDefender did to Revision3?