DUDE man, Get the Fok Out of here!! This is some GOOD s*** for Cohen, Hes making some good money NOW!! but He knows it wont stop it, And anyways, Torrent is not just run by him, its already been modify! so the MPAA are jsut gay and stupid

... I wish we had user polls attached to articles at betanews.com .. a good user poll would include:

Do you use bittorrent.com? Do you use the search feature (Never / Rarely / Occassionaly / Sometimes / Often / etc.)

Because it seems that whoever is handling this case is overvaluing the bittorrent search engine.

I think that it would be a good thing for Cohen to distance himself from the search feature and just focus on intellectual rights to the software. It's great stuff and he's done enough already without a search.

Congratulations Mr. Glickman! You showed that punk Brant Cohen. I think software piracy has already gone down 100 times fold just by this agreement alone.

[/sarcasm]

isohunt.com is all i say
:D heeheehee
the MPAA can go f*ck themselves

lol, this will have no effect on file sharing whatsoever. noone's using the official bittorrent client anyways

9 million to develope a search filter? Would prolly only take a day or two to setup. And there's so many alternative sites. What a waste of money o_O

here is what it comes down to. if you can afford a computer you can afford a cd\movie. or if you can afford to get the internet you can afford a cd/movie. end of discussion. i guess the snotty 16 and 17 year olds will count oo cause they don't have to buy anything they can just get there parents to buy it for them anyway

This was long overdue.
Now they won't criminalize people any longer - hopefully . . .

this is crazy
can't two files be of the same name and have different content like i could have made a movie of a wedding and called it "beauty and the beast" and it wll block files closely resemblign names!?

Couldn't you just...

I don't know...

...name it something else?

I know people like to b1tch and moan, but come on... Something as simple as renaming a file is too hard?

I think "working together with" means that the MPAA will continously tell BT what files are no good.

file identification will not be done from the file name, but rather from checksums based on the file content. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checksum

I think renaming a personal wedding video to something other than "Beauty and the Beast" would be just fine with MPAA..

You did read the message I replied to, right?

yes but that would be for specific rips that are pointed out! wouldn't help much anyway! its just a search engine and many new ones better now out of USA :)

The very design of a checksum makes it useless for this purpose, as any two even mildly different files should produce unique checksums. If they didn't, the checksum wouldn't be able to tell if data had been corrupted in the first place.

In other words, a minor and (relatively) simple alteration to the file would render the check useless. It isn't significantly difficult to alter a file ever so slightly as to make it produce a different checksum, certainly not enough so that using checksums will prevent the spreading of pirated files.

[Minor typo fixed.]

Seeing as how this is one of the only P2P setups that's actually made headway in providing free and legitimate uses, I am glad he's being proactive in staving off the hordes.

While this does not affect the thousands of warez-trackers out there, it does, however, show his intent as something other than piracy.

Instead of doing nothing, as with most of the recently deceased P2P apps, he's taking a "token" stand. It doesn't hurt his legit or illegit users, so it's inneffective in that regard, but it should make it a lot harder to convince a court the network is inherently illegal.

Yes...very smart move on his part.

Whats that? 17,000 downloading Harry Potter 4 the last time i checked... yes.. it seems to be working... LOL

Yea ok.... Id LOVE to see how they are going to do this. one announce URL and the file/movie/song its out there.. and they cant stop it.. Put the announce URL on a non US server.. set.. game.. match.. game over..

*ahem*

It's Game. Set. Match.

What about those of us who own a legal copy of the film and wanna download a digital copy?

I know I prefer to watch things on my computer then on my OLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLD TV...

Mum says the TV is older then ME... and I'm 17...

Then rip it to your pc, there are several freeware rip tools that allow you to rip to your pc. Or, just put the dvd in your dvd rom drive and hit play in your software player. There are several ways to do this. You dont have to download any copy of the film nowadays if you own the legal copy, there are plenty of ways to watch it on your pc without downloading a copy

And what if does not have a DVD drive in his computer? Nor any device that can track/record a tv signal?

And have you ver heard a word FREEDOM? I thought in USA you have a FREEDOM guaranted by Law... So why don't you use this right?

RIAA and MPAA is just a band of layers and lawyers.

Yes you have freedom, but not freedom to steal copyrighted works. If his computer doesnt have a dvd drive, then one can easily be picked up for $10 on ebay. I know the guy claims to be 17 but even when I was 17 I had a job and made enough to cover $10 plus shipping from ebay or newegg. Plus, if you read his comment, he said "What if someone already owns the film". Hell, I even see a $30 tv tuner so he can watch his show still, yet again, on his pc. Dont try the poverty game, unless you are a 17 year old who's parents buy you everything and dont force you to work and find out how the real world works.

LOL.

If that's what you think freedom means, you need to check with Webster.

I'm pretty sure this ISN'T what it says:

free·dom
n.

1. The right to download copyrighted material without providing repayment for said material.

Sweet. That's awesome.

I hope this is sufficient and that BitTorrent will stick around as it is used for several legitimate reasons.

This isn't going to be a filter built into the client. It is only a filter that will be applied to the search engine found at http://search.bittorrent.com/. Plus, the only client that could be controlled (this is hypothetical) by this deal is the official one supported by the official BitTorrent site. BitTorrent isn't a P2P network as much as it is a networking protocol. Just because a client or host site is brought down it isn't going to stop the technology.

Are all of you illiterate idiots?

"Under the terms of the deal, Cohen will add technology *to the search engine used by bittorrent.com* that would effectively remove content that is owned by the studios that make up the MPAA. (...) "As such, we are pleased to work with the film industry to remove unauthorized content from bittorrent.com's search engine.""

IT'S A SEARCH FILTER *ON THE SITE*! This will do extremely little to curb piracy, if it does anything AT ALL. There are countless trackers, all with their own search engines, listing pirated material. Many (most) haven't even been touched in the past, and this measure certainly won't do it.

The search engine is the only technology HE can modify! He can't/shouldn't be responsible for content that is available from "other sources!"

Neither should other P2P networks, but they were still found to be liable... nuff said.

Can't wait to read all the "I hate RIAA" comments!

I hate RIAA....

rather irrelevant considering this article is about the MPAA

Me too...

I hate MPAA too.

LOL

They'e both the same sort of parasite.

LOL loved it!

What's the next P2P then?

BitTorrent will remain P2P--you mean what's the next ILLEGAL P2P, right?

Yep, because we all know you warez/pirate kiddies cant survive without your free stuff that you didnt pay for. Now bring on the comments about "F the RIAA, the MPAA sucks, I will never buy anything from them because I deserve everything they make for free because Im too cheap to purchase anything".

There is now trackerless Bit Torrent available.

It's called evolution and all the RIAA and other such parasites are doing is helping to improve the breed. They can never win, but they know this and don't really care since they, as lawyers, get paid whether they win or not. They're bigger pirates than any downloader ever was. And to those who believe that the RIAA isn't are naive.

Rather than argue back and forth on an issue neither of us will change our minds about anytime soon, kindley refer to Metshrine's comment above...

It's not that. It's because these companies are charging through the roof prices.

Not only that, but the RIAA and MPAA sue whoever they can find then don't take it to court.

My cable company charges way too much to my cable bill...should I steal cable, too? Government taxes me too much so I should cheat on my taxes, right? Heck everyone screws us, that's life. YOU be the better person!

They sue them for stealing their works, and thats well within their right. I am not going to sit here and whine about it when some corporation tries to protect their works. I support the MPAA wholeheartedly as I own almost 500 dvds, and I support the RIAA more and more now with ITunes and napster (I purchase from both). I dont agree that suing is the best method, but it is within their right to do it if they choose. If you want their prices changed, stealing isnt going to do it. All that is going to do is make them charge more since you are taking from them, profit that should have been made.

It's not a free, fair and open market where genuine competition dictates the price. Three huge players control all the films you want to watch and fix prices between them, giving you an effective monopoly and, yes, inflated prices and price-fixing. Welcome to corporate conglomeration. And I can see how extraordinary pressure is required to get prices down in a corrupt, mutually back-scratching situation like that, because outright theft is absolutely the only competitive pressure these huge companies have left thanks to cynical lobbying and globalisation.

Oh yeah, go on about my 'rationalisation'. I buy DVDs and I support the artists and film-makers I love by buying their work. That doesn't polarise the whole issue between lazy, villainous pirates and virtuous consumers as you MPAA/RIAA advocates would like to have it. Jeez, this has got to be the most apathetic, sheeplike generation of consumers ever, with a matching generation of purveyors who deserve your misplaced trust less than any of their predecessors. Fight the power a little bit, for God's sake, because it isn't about 'victory', it's about pressure.

Stealing cable is enforced, cheating on your taxes is the Treasure Department, they will throw your a** in prison. Both of those have proven they will prosecute.. Stealing music and movies.. not so much, people do it and get away with it..

Does it make it right? NO. But cable is a regulated communication, and its covered under the FCC. So is tax evasion, that's also a Federal crime. Its not a federal crime to steal movies and music..... At least its not being enforced.. that's why people do it.

You want to stop people? Do something to MAKE them stop. Otherwise its too easy to download movies and music.

Be the better person? Why? Because its the moral thing to do? NOT!

I have knowledge about how to get movies and music for free. Do I get movies and music for my friends.. no I encourage them to by them legally, but for me, I will continue to download. So what? You going to stop me? Hardly. I can find hundreds of sources on the net to download from, that's the really silly part. They are going after the easy victims, to make them an example, in the end, they are going to look like the bad guys because its WAY to easy to get illegal copies made.. Hell I don't even have to download them, I can go downtown to ANY city, and find some vendor on the street corner or at the flea market.. Sure they get busted.... eventually.. sometimes..

In the mean time, I am taking what they are giving, FREE access to illegal movies/music.

Just keep on keeping on.....

OK, you guys banty this word around way too often, "monopoly". Look up the definition, mono meaning 1. Means a SINGLE entity has control, 3 companies is not a monopoly, maybe price fixing, the airlines do it, coke/pepsi did it, they get a slap on the wrist and keep doing it, they just become creative geniuses at doing it..

This is a seller's market. What they are doing can be justified as taking advantage of a situation, but I have to say its within their right. I still hate it..

Lets take the price of gas. Everyone talks about "boycotting" but then everyone has a reality check, lets see, I need to go to work, I need to provide for my family, so I guess I will just complain and moan, but won't do anything, because I can't keep the price of gas down.. Gas companies know we can't hold out for long.. I don't even think we can hold out AT ALL. If everyone quit buying gas for 1 day, who are they ultimately hurting? The local vendors that's who. The gas has already been bought and paid for.. It would take a several month boycott to make a stand, and just how do you propose we do that? Ride bikes? yeah.... sure.

The entertainment industry takes advantage in the same way, they know we want our music and movies.. and we will pay for them. Others of us that wage our own war by distributing them on the net, its the rebellion. My philosophy is, if you can't bust everyone for doing it, then screw it, I am doing it.. until you prove you can keep EVERYONE from doing it, like speeding. They catch a few here and there, it looks good, and makes other people slow down.. but they aren't after everyone, only the few people that are so obviously speeding they get nailed. Everyone speeds.. well if they had unmarked cars, and made better use of cameras and electronic speed detections, believe me, people will quit speeding.. but they don't WANT you to quit speeding, its too profitable to stop all together, they only make enough presence to catch what they need to rake in the money, like drugs.

They bust a huge drug dealer for bringing in drugs, they know where they come from, they ALLOW them to enter the country, so they catch people red handed, and go from there.. If drugs stopped completely, there goes billions in unreported income.. Government subsidizes the war effort with drug money.. Yeah yeah.. conspiracy theory, bite me! Its apparent that's what they are doing and people are turning a blind eye.

The government doesn't give a flip about protecting private industry, so people like Sony protect themselves, and then they get sued..

Ah the wheels of ecomony, they just keep spinning, more lawyers, judges, courts, goverment, everyone makes money, keep taking people to court! They aren't interested in stopping those downloads, they are only interested in profiting from people who are too stupid to be inconspicuous about it.

OK, another ignorant technology misconception, there is no such thing, *REPEAT* - NO WAY you can be trackerless. NONE. ZIP. NIL.

If you connect to the net someplace, they WILL find you, if they wanted to.

Even pre-paid cell phones, with no "ID" can be tracked. They can simply trace it back to where you bought it for starters, did you use a credit card to pay for that phone? OK, bam, they got you.

I don't care what its called, its BS. You have an IP address on the net. Packets are sent all over the world. This isn't war games movie, and you can't hide behind 1000 computers.. a link to a link to a link is still a trail...

True enough they may never win, but don't think for a single instant you are EVER anonymous on the NET, because you are not.

Cheap has nothing to do with it. They set a price, and I don't agree its worth it. I pay for stuff that is higher price than the cheaper version, I think its worth it to pay more for something that is worthy of my dollar. I choose where to spend it. If I don't want to pay for the stuff, then I won't pay for it. Simple as that. I buy shareware, I contribute to many things, and its not paying my conscience to go away. I pay for what I want to pay for. As long as there are places on the net to get things for free, and they don't have a way to keep me from getting it?

Yeah morals, stealing is stealing. Fine. I am stealing my movies and songs. I don't want to pay for it. Doesn't mean I am cheap. I don't agree for what they are selling it for, its my way of pushing back...

It's not a federal crime to steal music and movies? Is this a fact? Can you support this statement after I quote "Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000." Seems like a federal crime if there is federal penalties? Afterall, the MPAA and RIAA use the "FBI ANTI-PIRACY WARNING" label regularly now. Why use a federal name if there is no federal penalty? Good luck if you spend most of your time responding to posts without any backbone. This gives the MPAA and RIAA some backbone to prosecute, and they have. Many people in the process, actually.

AMEN wav. Its not as easy to enforce as this guy claims it to be. They cant sit there in your house and monitor everything like they'd wish. Instead they find the people that are mass distributing this stuff on p2p nets and sue them. Thats their right. The Federal gov't has been protecting the Music and movie industry in that effect for several years (at least since I was born, when I could see their federally mandated copyright notice on a tape I watched at the age of 3).

So, if I dont feel I should pay for a car, should I just go and take one? By your logic that is the right thing to do. You seem to say that you can justify stealing because you dont agree with a price set by its creator. If I walk into a store and see a loaf of bread for $3.00, and I dont agree with its price, does that mean I should just steal it? Just because you dont agree with the pricing on something does not mean you are entitled to it for free. Dont butter it up, as you said, stealing is stealing. There is no way to justify it. The poverty excuse doesnt work ("I am only 16 and cant afford it cause mommy/daddy havent made me get a job"), the "Its too expensive so I should get it for free" excuse doesnt work. Please, show me a truely legit justification for stealing someone else's work.

Peer Guardian. Plus, downloading for personal use is not illegal where I live. It has been proven that downloading alone doesn't affect sales.

Metshrine:
I clearly see where you come from. However (aint there allways one=)), the movies which I have legally purchased either in shops or via the net, I would like to show to my family. Only thing is that my family is spread over various countries so for me to share it with them (as if they visited me for a beer 'n snacks and we watched a movie)is for me to let them DL it. I legally own the DvD, have paid for it and Eula's aside want my family to enjoy it with me (albeit from afar),, C the ludecracy in the situation?
The same goes for the various "Region Restrictions" on same said DvD's, its absurd!
Maybe someday the RIA. will visit me but since I'm not a pimplefaced teenager I can promise you it will go all the way to den Haag ^L*
RIA are SO out of line.
ps. When you were a kid, didn't you e v e r nap an apple from the neighbour? =)

"It has been proven that downloading alone doesn't affect sales."

I love it when people say this as if it's fact. EVEN IF IT IS TRUE, there is no way you can "prove" it.

"So what? You going to stop me?"

No...I can't make you, nor would I wish to make you only download legally.

"Be the better person? Why? Because its the moral thing to do?"

This is really the only strong point where we disagree on this...I believe it SHOULD be reason enough not to download illegal content, but times (and people) have changed. If you feel no guilt/conviction for doing it, though, then how can I expect you not to download? You'll do what you want to...a measley comment in BN will not change your mind--I'm only giving my opinion on the matter.

> So, if I dont feel I should pay for a car,
> should I just go and take one?

Yes, just like other people make copies of files without paying for the copies, you should go ahead and make yourself a copy of the car you like without paying for the copy.

The same with the bread at $3.00, you are welcome to make yourself a copy and eat it.

Either way your paying for something arent you, in both of your examples. Your paying for the materials to make the bread as well as the car. So I fail to see your point? The pirates arent paying for a program to download the mp3's of the copyrighted material are they?

"the movies which I have legally purchased either in shops or via the net, I would like to show to my family. "

Your family can legally buy the dvd, legally buy the movie online, or whatever. It is illegal to send them a movie even if you own it (unless you give them YOUR DVD). Why? Because YOU own it, not them. What can you do legally?

1. Send them money to buy one at whatever country they're at;

2. Region codes can be changed on DVD players a set number of times...send them your DVD, and if they want, they can have a separate DVD player for the one region;

3. Buy them a DVD online for their region.

Pain in the butt, I know. But LEGALLY, you have options. Sending them a COPY of a movie you own is illegal unless you actually transfer the movie to them (where they own your DVD). Before you flame, remember...I didn't make the rules. If you want to break them and feel justified in your mind then do so. I could not justify doing what you're doing in my mind, though.

This is the whole point, you think the copies of movies on the P2P were never "legally" owned? They were, then someone illegally posted them on the internet after cracking the encryption or whatever. That is the same thing you are doing by sending a copy of the movie you "legally purchased". Think of it like a MS Windows license--only one installation per license.

You brought the analogy of taking someone's car and I am showing you that correct analogy is making a copy of that car, since people are making copies of files, not taking away original from owner.

In regards to materials, firstly you are paying for "materials" necessary to make a copy of a file: hard disk space, internet connection bandwidth etc., just like you would pay for materials to copy a car. And secondly, whether you had to pay for materials or not is completely irrelevant to the question of your right to make such a copy.

If a way is invented to create cars or bread cheaply and easily does that mean that you would lose your right to make yourself a COPY of bread someone else has and would have to buy it from BIAA (Bread Industry Association of America)?

> OK, another ignorant technology misconception,
> there is no such thing, *REPEAT* - NO WAY you
> can be trackerless. NONE. ZIP. NIL.

I beg to differ. Both TOR and Darknet have provable level of anonymity (the higher the anonymity the lower the performance but you can take anonymity as high as you want).

And RIAA indeed is the sole reason behind development of this class of systems.

In the end, our descendants may have RIAA to thank for the freedom to exchange information they will enjoy. Ironic isn't it?

But again, file duplication results in an exact duplicate of the work, the methods you describe do not. You will never make a loaf of bread that is identical in content to the original, same goes for the car. The materials will always be different. With files, the content is ALWAYS the same, the work that has been copyrighted.

Anyways, copying aside, if you own the original work duplication is fine. But why download it? If you in fact own said work, there are hundreds of different ways to copy say, a cd, to a computer for playback, or a dvd to a pc, for playback with the disc (thus preserving the original). You shouldnt have to download anything unless it is offered by the copyright holder.

> You will never make a loaf of bread
> that is identical in content to the original,
> same goes for the car.

What makes you so sure of that? Anything in the laws of physics that prevent us from making device capable of copying an object molecule for molecule?

And why do you insist that our ability to do something should define our right to do it? Either I have a right to make a copy of the bread I borrowed from my friend, or I don't have a right to do it and have to always buy my bread from BIAA. That right (like all other freedoms) exist independently of my ability to execute it.

we, the members of the YIAA boytcot such an action as you didnt recieve express permission from us to COPY yeast in the use of making your copy of Bread v. 10.3

*laughs as he watches someone break into your house and steals all 500 of your dvds. leaving as note, Happy shopping and wasting money on 500 more dvd.s LOL

So, when you get down to it, you're using this logic to justify the copying of a work from a friend which YOU YOURSELF did not pay for? I am still waiting to see how you can define this as legal. The whole point of my post is that you cannot legally justify copying a file from a friend that you do not own the original media too.

You were saying?

http://64.233.167.104/se...y&hl=en&start=1

http://www.news.harvard.....15/09-filesharing.html

http://www.boston.com/bu...ont_affect_sales_of_cds/

Technically, Metshrine, the RIAA/MPAA aren't suing people for stealing THEIR works, they're suing people for stealing their ARTISTS works. And in some cases, the artists have spoken out against the actions of the RIAA/MPAA. I'm not questioning their rights to sue, but it isn't that it is their own works they're in it for. They're just in it for the money and the publicity.

Yes, it is illegal under current US law.

I am just showing you that current US law is wrong, it arbitrarily limits freedom of people just because someone's business model depends on that freedom being limited.

I should have a right to make a copy of something my friend has (with his consent). Be it a loaf of bread or a file.

Making a copy and taking away original (stealing) are two very different things. RIAA is brainwashing people to make them believe it is the same.

So, your telling me it is totally ok to take a copy of a cd from a friend, a cd you didnt pay for, and not provide proper compensation to the artist? Please explain to me how that works cause I surely cant figure that out. How exactly is that not stealing?

> So, your telling me it is totally ok to take
> a copy of a cd from a friend, a cd you didnt
> pay for, and not provide proper compensation
> to the artist?

I think you should have a right to make yourself a copy of whatever you want.

Irrespective of that, I think a decent individual would feel compelled to compensate artist if he uses a copy of his work (artist, not a parasite like RIAA).

> How exactly is that not stealing?

Because stealing is taking away something from owner without his consent. And when you make yourself a copy of something, owner still has his original and you did not take anything away from him.

You do understand that when I made myself a copy of the bread you have I did not still anything away from you, right? Then why is it so difficult to understand that the exact same thing happens with a copy of file?

Just because RIAA says it can't make money otherwise? What if copying bread becomes simple and then bakeries say they can't make money if you are allowed to copy bread? You think that's a legitimate reason to suppress people's freedom?

Uh-oh...your technological ignorance is showing. Anytime I want, I can be Gustav from Finland, Boris from Austria, or Steve from India. Just because you don't know how to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

Not even close to proof...

LOL! Yeah, okay...

If this was not legal, then everybody will be left with copies. Lets say the some guy made a pice of bread. One person buys that bread from the company, and everybody starts making copies of the bread. The company will so go out of business, because noone will buy the original bread anymore, because they would all make copies of the original.

Looking at it from the software view, if this was not legal, there would never be anything following Photoshop 1, or Windows 95. Adobe and Microsoft would go out of business because they could not pay their emplayess.

Bottom line, if people do not buy their product, the product cannot exsist. If people do not pay for software, software will not exsist.

You are stuck on the impression that "freedom" means that you can do whatever you want (coping wise). But think about what you are saying. We do not have "complete freedom", we have freedom to an extent.

1)Can we run around outside naked because we fill like it?
2)Can we take someone's life?
3)Can we robb a bank becuase we cant afford food?

etc.

my point is that we have "freedom" we cannot do what ever we want.

If we warez was legal:

1) people wont have jobs
2) software wont exsits
3) musicians will be bankrupt
4) Entertainment wont exsists
5) Inter-related industries will dissappear.

If you had the power, would you really make piracy LEGAL?

BTW. Im not gonna lie, im not a fan of RIAA or MP(whatever), but I dont mind them trying to stop this, because I know they never will, but are rather slowing it down. Furthermore, as long as they dont catch me.....

There are reasons we as society find important enough to limit people's freedom, some of them you mentioned, like taking someone's life or robbing a bank.

Are you saying insuring someone has a profit is one of those reasons?

> If you had the power, would you really make piracy LEGAL?

I would make it legal to make yourself a copy of anything you want.

When you are saying that industries will disappear, you are buying into RIAA hysteria. Just because the business model they came to enjoy for so many years with such a huge profit margins will no longer work doesn't mean new business models won't come to replace it.

Microsoft is crying the same thing about GPL software: "if everyone has a right to make a free copy, companies can't make money from it". But in reality new business models came to replace "enforce charge per copy" model, just look at companies like Red Hat with market value into multiple billions.

Don't buy into bulls***. Think for yourself.

There's a BIG difference between statistics and proof. You can make the numbers say anything you want by changing grouping sizes, throwing out "outliers," etc.

Even I know that, and all I've done in statistics was pass my Intro class a couple years ago.