File-Swap Software Poses Threat to Hollywood (BitTorrent)

San Jose Mercury News ^ | 9/27/04 | Dawn C. Chmielewski

[ProtectOurFreedom]

New technology threatens to do to Hollywood what Napster did to music. … BitTorrent is much faster than file-swapping software used to exchange movies and music over the Internet. … BitTorrent can transfer a feature-length film in about two hours -- a fraction of the 12 hours it typically takes with file-sharing services like Kazaa. ... the speed of the download actually increases with the number of people sharing a particular file.

BitTorrent ... imperils the movie studios' most lucrative source of revenue -- the $17.5 billion the industry reaped last year from DVD sales and rentals.

BitTorrent is a departure from the file-sharing technologies that allow one computer user to obtain a file directly from another over the Internet. Napster popularized file-swapping. When the courts shut down Napster in July 2001, file-swappers switched to Kazaa, which offered a new type of file-sharing program that quickly became the world's most popular ... . Both Napster and Kazaa created self-contained networks that allowed individuals to search for and obtain [files].

BitTorrent isn't a permanent network. It is a software tool that spawns impromptu networks of computer users, all of whom are seeking the same digital file. What makes it speedier than Kazaa is the notion of reciprocity. Anyone downloading a copy of [a movie] is simultaneously exchanging portions of the movie they've already downloaded with others.

It's like a group of people sitting around a table, all trying to assemble a complete version of the hot-selling book "The Da Vinci Code." The book's owner has distributed the pages so that no one has a complete copy. Thus everyone copies and distributes the pages they have in exchange for the missing pages. The swap continues until everyone has the entire book.

Once a download is completed, the network disconnects and disappears without a trace.

[Revolting cat!]

Happy downloading, y'all! Just beware of the pontificating Church ladies on their High Horses around here!

[z3n]

"The value of the item is immaterial. Stealing a movie is exactly the same as stealing anything else. It is simply stealing property that belongs to someone else. It's wrong."

Again, in principle, I agree. Theft is theft.

However, what is unique to intellecual property is a system of monopolization that is basically outlawed with other forms of retail.

While you can purchase "Finding Nemo" DVD from various retail outlets, there is only one corporation with rights to produce and distribute it. Thus, they have a monopoly. This is why I bring up the production cost of a DVD being 4cents.
Keep that in mind when you get your typing fingers ready to respond by going back to your car metaphor by saing that a Ford F150 is a 'monopoly' of the Ford Motor Company. While the F150 is chock full of intellectual property rights, including trademarks, patents, and more, the ability to monopolize price of the F150 truck does not rest soley in Intellectual property monompoly. Competition from other manufacturers with equivalent products allows the consumers to influence fair price through market influence.
There is no equivalent product to compete with "Finding Nemo" on the market inherently except that all other DVDs compete. If any one DVD was an equivalent alternative to "Finding Nemo" the corporation that owned the rights to it would probably sue on grounds of Intellectual Property infringment.

If the same conditions existed in the Automobile Industry, you would have Auto Manufacturers who charge 100x the manufacturing cost for their cars. Obviously, that is rediculous, because in the auto industry, no one would buy the car. In the entertainment industry, collusion in built-in.

[ThinkDifferent]

All bets are not off, I assure you. I'd exercise caution.

Society has decided that noncommercial copyright infringement is about as bad as speeding. A few people will get dinged, but there are not going to be mass arrests of the millions of people who have downloaded a few MP3s.

[ashtanga]

I have little respect for Hollywood, but I would never try to derive a dishonest cent from their efforts. While I avoid certain actors and directors, when I do want a movie, I gladly pay full price, and consider it a bargain.

[MineralMan]

"If the same conditions existed in the Automobile Industry, you would have Auto Manufacturers who charge 100x the manufacturing cost for their cars. Obviously, that is rediculous, because in the auto industry, no one would buy the car. In the entertainment industry, collusion in built-in."

You have a point. However, the cost of distributing a film on DVD is not limited to the cost of reproduction of the CD itself, of course. That's really not relevant, though.

Films, like automobiles, are products. Companies that produce them have investors, employees, etc., just like auto companies.

We're not talking about stuff that's 50 years old here. We're talking about current products, primarily. Products which have a real marketplace and real customers.

I'm not going to get into the profit structure of entertainment companies here. It's also not relevant.

Bottom line is that these file-sharing schemes break laws, and those who bypass the normal distribution channels for entertainment products are thieves. It's that simple.

I'm always embarassed by these discussions on Free Republic, where threads advocating other illegal activity are pulled immediately.

Why do I care? Well, I spent most of my life producing "intellectual properties." My software company went out of business a few years ago, not because its products were no good, but because nobody bothered to pay for them. Some of the programs are still the best in their categories and are still used by thousands of users. Yes, I was a shareware company, because I thought that the general honesty of the consumer would pay off. It did not.

I never resorted to crippling my software to encourage payment. I thought that was a lousy tool. So, folks downloaded the software, used it, and are still using it, all these years later. I still get calls from people for support for programs they refused to pay for.

And there it is. Now I sell something tangible, something that cannot be distributed online. Thievery is thievery. It's that simple.

[MineralMan]

"I have little respect for Hollywood, but I would never try to derive a dishonest cent from their efforts. While I avoid certain actors and directors, when I do want a movie, I gladly pay full price, and consider it a bargain."

Bravo!

[BushisTheMan]

Does this mean Hollywood and all the incompetent actors/actresses will no longer have out-of-this-world salaries for the biggest bunch of loser movies ever put out?

Good.

[Kleon]

I usually download at 100-200 kbps using Bit Torrent. I've had a few slow torrents, but only because there were three or four people connected.

I strongly advise people not to use this program to download movies. Your IP address is very easily traceable, and since you share what you download, you share the culpability.

I use Bit Torrent to download the most recent episodes of my favorite shows when I can't watch them. I'm not sure what the legality of this is, though.

[Salgak]

Actually, I don't steal them. But I DO use BitTorrent for getting updated Linux distributions. And I'll admit that in the last few years, there's been a LOT more dreck than good stuff coming out of the studio, or the record companies. . .

That's why I rarely go to movies, and use Netflix. If, after viewing once on DVD, I like the flick, I buy a copy.

But other than Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, me and mine haven't been to a movie in the theaters for YEARS. . .

[ksen]

I use Bit Torrent to download the most recent episodes of my favorite shows when I can't watch them. I'm not sure what the legality of this is, though.

You'd think it would be as illegal as videotaping it or TiVo-ing it for watching later.

Like another poster, I use BT to get shows that are not available in the US. Once they become available they are generally not available with BT anymore.

[Bonaparte]

LOL! You are a very funny guy, MM. None of these trade associations are in position to sue more than .0001% of the downloaders. There are better odds of a file sharer being hit by a downed airliner than being sued by RIAA or any of the others.

For decades, the labels have cheated 99% of the artists. For decades, they have engaged in price-fixing (illegal) and other hostile acts against consumers, for which they've received an occasional slap on the wrist from the courts. Now the tables are turning and they don't like it. Too bad.

Here's a question to test your adherence to "principle"...

Back when we were British subjects and legally obliged to obey acts of Parliament, we were made subject to the Stamp, Navigation and Townshend Acts. Had we complied with those, most of us would have been driven into poverty. But instead, we disobeyed them and continued to prosper. There is no question that we were robbing the crown of money it was legally entitled to.

Should our merchants and shippers have all been fined, imprisoned and subjected to confiscation?

Here's another question for you...

Should Congress be exempt from its oath to uphold the Constitution, the Constitution that does not provide for copyright in perpetuity?

[MineralMan]

"Actually, I don't steal them. But I DO use BitTorrent for getting updated Linux distributions. "

Sounds like good technology for distribution of large amounts of data. Pity it's being used for illegal stuff.

It's kinda like the 'net. It's terrific. But it's sad that it's used so much to distribute pornography and spam.

I'm not opposed in any way to BitTorrent. I'm opposed to illegal copying of copyright materials.

[Larry381]

sad to say most of the crap out of Hollywood today isn't even worth stealing. The only good dvds worth stealing are the older movies produced years ago before the current mob of hollywood counterfeit-stars and pathologically obsolescent pc directors crawled onto the scene.

[MineralMan]

"LOL! You are a very funny guy, MM. None of these trade associations are in position to sue more than .0001% of the downloaders. There are better odds of a file sharer being hit by a downed airliner than being sued by RIAA or any of the others.
For decades, the labels have cheated 99% of the artists. For decades, they have engaged in price-fixing (illegal) and other hostile acts against consumers, for which they've received an occasional slap on the wrist from the courts. Now the tables are turning and they don't like it. Too bad."

---

OK. Let's look at this: You claim that record labels have cheated artists. Are you an artist? Are you one of the ones they cheated?

So, even if you're not, you somehow feel justified in stealing products from these companies. Well, OK. That's your decision. I'm not in the law enforcement business, so you needn't worry about me.

I just believe that stealing is wrong. Even stealing from thieves is wrong. But you go ahead and do whatever it is that you want to do. It's of little importance to me that your morality is so weak. I will, of course, remember your screen name here, and take any moral arguments you make with a large grain of salt.

Phooey on thieves!

[Squantos]

Being "shared" in "parts" they'll have to take down anyone who's ever posted a vidcap or loaned their family or friends a DVD they purchased legally would they not ?


IMHO IP addresses can be traced to people who don't care if they are traced. Anyone can spoof a IP with a little effort .

[1stFreedom]

I guess it comes down to this:

Are intellectual propery laws just? Are copyrights just? I mean, it's one thing to call taking a fruit which you haven't paid for a theft, and then taking something else intangible, like a file, theft. When you take a file, no physical entity has been removed from the producers -- they have their masters.

I think this is a debate worth closer investigation.

[Squantos]

LOL........This is gonna be a funny thread.

[Smogger]

Hey your quoting me is violating my intellectual property rights ;-)

[Bonaparte]

You've ignored by questions, MM.

Should the colonists who violated acts of Parliament have all been fined, imprisoned and their goods confiscated?

Should Congress be accountable for violating the Constitutionally imposed limits on copyright?

And while we're at it, should the colonists have all been hanged for taking up arms against their king? That was illegal too.

[Bonaparte]

Hahaha!

Hey, smogger, did you hear about the Japanese guy and the Jewish guy who opened a restaurant together?

They called it SoSueMe.