PDA

View Full Version : gee whiz technology called "Bit-Torrent"



PatrickMoore
November 2nd, 2009, 01:46 AM
I'm Watching 60 minutes and they are talking about piracy. so far bit torrents are for pirating movies and drug cartels are using it to diversify. i can see the cartel aspect but seriously this is absurd

chris200x9
November 2nd, 2009, 01:48 AM
hahaha just saw it :D bit torrent is bad mmmkay

PatrickMoore
November 2nd, 2009, 01:52 AM
hahaha just saw it :D

im suprised the report was so horribly biased. what program were they using? ive never seen a bit torrent clien look like that

FuturePilot
November 2nd, 2009, 01:56 AM
/me goes to pirate Ubuntu.

lovinglinux
November 2nd, 2009, 01:56 AM
Don't watch mainstream TV news if you don't want to be brainwashed ;)

Mr. Picklesworth
November 2nd, 2009, 01:57 AM
Thankfully, BitTorrent actually has a pretty strong corporate entity in charge of the technology. Hopefully they will give CBS a good talking to.

chris200x9
November 2nd, 2009, 01:57 AM
im suprised the report was so horribly biased. what program were they using? ive never seen a bit torrent clien look like that

I don't know I just over heard it, the water mark thing was cool but alluding to the fact we need to slow/stop bit torrent traffic was just dumb

PatrickMoore
November 2nd, 2009, 01:59 AM
true i wish they would at least talk about some positive aspects of p2p i mean how many of us are seeding ubuntu right now to ensure people can download it free of charge? i mean i download my telecourse videos does that make me a criminal? well probably but still at least its in the interest of education.

PatrickMoore
November 2nd, 2009, 02:07 AM
I don't know I just over heard it, the water mark thing was cool but alluding to the fact we need to slow/stop bit torrent traffic was just dumb

yeah. i mean im not going to lie i waste bandwidth and my girlfriend does too. we work alot and go to school so we like to watch tv shows. but i mean there is good things that come from bit torrent technology

PhoHammer
November 2nd, 2009, 02:08 AM
Thankfully, BitTorrent actually has a pretty strong corporate entity in charge of the technology. Hopefully they will give CBS a good talking to.

I hope so...

ericmc783
November 2nd, 2009, 02:12 AM
For those of you who missed it, you can watch the segment this thread refers to, here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5486510n&tag=related;photovideo

Nevon
November 2nd, 2009, 11:48 AM
Wow, that was probably one of the worst 60 minutes segments I have ever watched. I really do hope that the Bittorrent company will educate CBS on what Bittorrent is and isn't.

mivo
November 2nd, 2009, 11:57 AM
It's nonsense, of course, but then again, I am relatively sure that BitTorrent is more often used for downloading movies/etc. than for legit stuff. That has nothing to do with the technology, however.

NickJones
November 2nd, 2009, 12:05 PM
It's so annoying when old people who get the idea that "torrent is bad" into there head and go on rampages. I'm in Australia, and our communications mister decided that he would force all the ISPs to put a mandatory filter in place, blocking p2p traffic & hardcore porn. This would have costed billions of dollars, and would have almost halved the speed of our already sluggish internet.

I think all of the people getting so fussed about this need to realise, there is nothing they can do to stop this, it's not like Hollywood is going to go bankrupt, I still enjoy watching a film in the cinema, I don't think girls would take "would you like to sit on my couch and watch a movie on my laptop" as a great date, but I still torrent.

Admit it 60 Minutes and Communications Minster Stephen Conry; you don't know what you are talking about. And please stop adding the word "Cyber" to everything, Cybersex is not going to get you STIs.

END OF RANT

JBAlaska
November 2nd, 2009, 12:07 PM
They are the bane of Hollywood: criminals who copy films and distribute them illegally on the Internet, costing Hollywood billions in lost revenue.

Poor old Hollywood...Maybe they can get food stamps..

JillSwift
November 2nd, 2009, 12:08 PM
I think the torrent client was Vuze, on Windows. Very sexy little graph of the swarm, you have to admit.

I got a kick out of the irony of participating in the "piracy" by downloading (and thus uploading) a film as an example.

And boy howdy was that piece ever biased - so biased it's amazing the picture wasn't slanted. I'm not expecting any clarification about bittorrent technology being a distribution tool that can be and is used legally. That doesn't sell ads.

jwbrase
November 2nd, 2009, 12:22 PM
Poor old Hollywood...Maybe they can get food stamps..

"Bane of Hollywood..."

Gee, given what's been coming out of Hollywood recently, that almost makes the pirates sound like heroes. Well, except for the fact that they actually *want* to watch what Hollywood puts out...

mangurt
November 2nd, 2009, 12:25 PM
Ugg....stuff like this really make me mad. As we know, bit torrent is not bad. If it was so bad, the movie industry should go after Blizzard for using bit torrent for WOW. Give me a break

t0p
November 2nd, 2009, 12:31 PM
This "bittorrent is bad" idea is being touted more and more, as the film and music industries' agenda is pushed by politicians and figures in the "news" (read: "entertainment") industry.

Look at what the current UK government are planning: mandatory disconnection of internet access for users who do too much illegal file-sharing. How will the ISPs know if illegal file-sharing is going on? Easy: they will simply assume that all bittorrent traffic is illegal file-sharing. So it looks like bittorrent will become illegal.

Of course, we in the UK are not the only victims of this mindset. The film and music industries are large and very rich. So they are influential with most governments. What's happening in the UK will eventually spread to the rest of the world. File-share now, while there's still time!!! :o

3rdalbum
November 2nd, 2009, 12:36 PM
It's so annoying when old people who get the idea that "torrent is bad" into there head and go on rampages. I'm in Australia, and our communications mister decided that he would force all the ISPs to put a mandatory filter in place, blocking p2p traffic & hardcore porn. This would have costed billions of dollars, and would have almost halved the speed of our already sluggish internet.

The filtering system idea seems to be on the backburner (probably because Stephen Conroy is an embarrassment to his party, accusing his detractors of pedophilia) but it's still officially on the agenda. This is dangerous.

So-called "computer crimes" are a social problem, not a technological problem. Technology will always be misued - the simple spear was used for murdering innocent cavemen, but it was also used to get food and feed families. The Internet is used for stealing people's money and pirating movies, but it's also used for a massive amount of good.

The Funkbomb
November 2nd, 2009, 12:39 PM
I thought the piece was pretty fair. They never said bit torrent doesn't have legitimate uses. They probably should have but the point of the piece was that this is a technology pirates use.

It's like if they did a piece on criminals using guns. Should they also mention that guns have a legitimate purpose, such as hunting, target shooting and self-defense? While it's true, it's going off on a tangent that doesn't further the article.

I thought it was hilarious when they were talking about the guy who had the audacity to hide a video camera in his child's diaper bag. They made it sound like he was smuggling assault weapons or a kilo of coke.

Now the part that does annoy me is they didn't go into why some people rather download a movie. They did go into how pirates profit but not the end user.

How many people have paid upwards to 15 bucks a person to go see an absolutely terrible movie? I've fallen victim dozens of times. Yeah, the promos and trailers look great but the movie turns out to be absolute crap. Where are the lawsuits for false advertising? A family of five @ $15 bucks pays 75 bucks to go see a movie and they wind up with something unwatchable.

Or you go to see a good movie and everyone is talking on their cell phones, talking to each other, screaming at the screen, or they brought their baby to a completely inappropriate movie and they cry during the whole thing? The movie theater refuses to do anything about it. If I wanted to sit there and listen to someone cry, I'd go to funerals instead of the movies.

How about when you try to buy a movie, it costs you 20-30 bucks? God forbid you rip that movie to your computer here in the US. You can't even watch what you paid for the way you want to watch it or the MPAA will sue you a new one. Sorry, I don't want to get up and change out discs.

Now the part that REALLY got me mad was the part with Steven Soderbergh. About how when people pirate movies, it's effecting all of these other people. Yeah, like when Ocean's Eleven was made for a budget of 85 million dollars and grossed nearly 451 million dollars worldwide? I'm sure Bob the Set Painter saw a huge windfall from that. I'm sure it does effect all the support and crew that help get a movie made but don't act like you're some sort of altruist. I bet if Bob the Set Painter was on fire in the middle of the street, Soderbergh A, wouldn't recognize him, and B, wouldn't pee on him to put him out. The real reason you care is because it cuts into YOUR money.

I'm not saying piracy is right because it isn't, but I can understand why a lot of people do it.

t0p
November 2nd, 2009, 12:57 PM
It also makes me mad that the news outlets are still parroting the crap about "lost revenue" - describing the "pirates" as "criminals who copy films and distribute them illegally on the Internet, costing Hollywood billions in lost revenue". "My friend" downloads lots of movies illegally, but he hasn't cost "Hollywood" a penny; cos he doesn't own a video DVD player and never bought videos or video DVDs since the days of VHS. But if the industry went after him, they'd accuse "my friend" of stealing thousands of pounds worth of content. Ridiculous.

Oh, and the idea that "pirates" profit from "my friend's" evil ways is also ridiculous. He doesn't click on adverts on The Pirate Bay or Mininova. He doesn't buy shonky DVDs off dodgy-looking characters down shadowy back alleys. He just watches movies that he wouldn't have seen otherwise.

Seriously, the way journalists mention "profits", "terrorism" and "bittorrent" in the same sentence is a calculated effort to criminalize bittorrent. Even if we accept the hypothesis that profits from illegally-copied DVDs goes to fund terrorism: what on Earth has any of that to do with bittorrent? How do evil terrorist drug smuggling video pirates make profit from "my friend" downloading a movie file over bittorrent? The only way anyone makes money out of bittorrent traffic is when sites like The Pirate Bay carry advertizing. That's it, period. "My friend" downloading "50 dead men walking" over bittorrent doesn't buy Osama bin Laden a single bullet.

pwnst*r
November 2nd, 2009, 02:13 PM
How many people have paid upwards to 15 bucks a person to go see an absolutely terrible movie? I've fallen victim dozens of times. Yeah, the promos and trailers look great but the movie turns out to be absolute crap. Where are the lawsuits for false advertising?

lol, worst argument ever. how is it false if those scenes are in the movie?

Tipped OuT
November 2nd, 2009, 02:31 PM
lol, worst argument ever. how is it false if those scenes are in the movie?

I think he's talking about the lies about Bit-Torrent. Nope, people don't use Bit-Torrent to pirate things. Lies I tell you! All lies!

Come on, Bit-Torrent is like having all of the money in the world in the palm of your hand. You're bound to take some of it, that doesn't belong to you, someday.

If you honestly haven't, then bravo. :)

pwnst*r
November 2nd, 2009, 02:33 PM
that's not what he was talking about in my quote. not even close. and he doesn't want to get up to change disks? really? that's an argument?

The Funkbomb
November 2nd, 2009, 03:18 PM
lol, worst argument ever. how is it false if those scenes are in the movie?

Because they take all the good scenes and put them in the promos. Then you pay to see the movie and it's absolute garbage in between those scenes.

The movie industry does this all of the time now because of the absolute garbage they put out. In fact, if you watch enough movie promos now, most of them have a variety of promos. One plays up the action, making you believe it's an action movie. Another promo has a few jokes in it, making you believe it's a comedy. The third promo makes you believe it's some feel good movie. It's all nonsense. In reality, it's none of the three. It's actually just a steaming pile.


that's not what he was talking about in my quote. not even close. and he doesn't want to get up to change disks? really? that's an argument?

In that quote, I'm talking about ripping DVDs. In the US, if you rip a DVD, you're a criminal and if the MPAA finds out, they can come after you. Even if you legally paid for the DVD, you're circumventing their copy protection.

mivo
November 2nd, 2009, 03:24 PM
In the US, if you rip a DVD, you're a criminal and if the MPAA finds out, they can come after you. Even if you legally paid for the DVD, you're circumventing their copy protection.

The EU has the same law, but most EU countries *also* have a national law granting the right to make backups of media you own, so it's a bit of a tricky situation. I don't think a court (here in Germany) would accept a case where you are accused of making a copy of a medium you legally own, even though you circumvented the copy protection, which is illegal according to the EU law. But I also don't think any movie organization would have an interest to go after someone who makes backups of their stuff but doesn't distribute it in any larger scale way (i.e. other than handing a friend a DVD).

The Funkbomb
November 2nd, 2009, 03:33 PM
The EU has the same law, but most EU countries *also* have a national law granting the right to make backups of media you own, so it's a bit of a tricky situation. I don't think a court (here in Germany) would accept a case where you are accused of making a copy of a medium you legally own, even though you circumvented the copy protection, which is illegal according to the EU law. But I also don't think any movie organization would have an interest to go after someone who makes backups of their stuff but doesn't distribute it in any larger scale way (i.e. other than handing a friend a DVD).

They're pretty aggressive when it comes to handling no-goodnicks here. They like to make examples of people.

PatrickBoyle
November 2nd, 2009, 03:37 PM
It's this type of reporting, and the MPAA/RIAA's BS in general that really motivates me to pirate more music and film. The arrogance of these organizations is astonishing. Do they really believe they're going to fight this by imposing technological barriers? We're geeks, baby. This is what we do best.

DRM only alienates paying customers. The first time I get frisked or catch someone with friggin' night vision goggles in a theater will be the last time I pay for a movie.

MPAA/RIAA: You keep paying news outlets to run garbage like this, and releasing your ridiculous videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUCyvw4w_yk). We'll keep filling tier 1 links with Hollywood's best.

P.S. Zip up, 60 Minutes, your bias is showing.

xuCGC002
November 2nd, 2009, 03:54 PM
Isn't BitTorrent- the client -owned by Ask? I remember installing it on a Windows machine once and it said (C) 2009 Ask.com on the installer.

PatrickBoyle
November 2nd, 2009, 03:59 PM
Isn't BitTorrent- the client -owned by Ask? I remember installing it on a Windows machine once and it said (C) 2009 Ask.com on the installer.

No.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(software)
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent,_Inc.

solitaire
November 2nd, 2009, 04:27 PM
Slight sequay but interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8337887.stm



File-sharers are big spenders too


People who download music illegally also spend an average of 77 a year buying it legitimately, a survey has found.

Those who claimed not to use peer-to-peer filesharing sites such as The Pirate Bay spent a yearly average of just 44.


Almost one in 10 of those questioned aged between 16 and 50 said they downloaded music illegally.
However, eight out of 10 of that group also bought CDs, vinyl and as MP3s.


A total of 1008 people in the UK took part in the online poll commissioned by researchers Demos.


So extrapolating from the above article: Those who "steal" media hand over more hard earned cash for music than people who don't, does it not stand to reason if the Entertainment industry wants more money they should cut off those who DON'T steal from them? ^_^

ok so i'm being slightly sarcastic in the above statement but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the entertainment industry cutting off a large portion of their income.

In reality; if i had a legal "try before I buy" system to see what a movie is like, I'd probably go to the movies more often...

pwnst*r
November 2nd, 2009, 04:45 PM
Because they take all the good scenes and put them in the promos. Then you pay to see the movie and it's absolute garbage in between those scenes.

still not false advertising.