Besides thieves who download music/movies, who else uses BT?
Its not theft if you torrent stuff, content like movies/music, apps & other content are free on torrent sites for a reason.
You have to be a special kind of asshole to think that taking what is not yours isn't stealing if the risk of being caught and convicted is practically nil.
well, except for the whole "replicator" philosophical debate over what theft is in a digital age. ie, do Star Trek style replicators which can make anything, "steal" from producers? turkey dinner, romulan ale...if you can dial in a chair, did you steal that chair since a wood worker was "robbed" of the chance to make another sale? a similar argument exists for digital goods that one wouldn't or couldn't purchase legally. does a penniless child peeping into the big top steal from the circus company? is there a question of scarcity involved? etc etc.
until there is better wealth distribution, don't except Asia or Russia or anyplace poor and likely legally barred from content to give a fuck about content rights.
Besides thieves who download music/movies, who else uses BT?
How does one steal a physical item via a BT? Or are you mistaking copyright violation for theft?
And you're mistaking copyright violation for knowingly accepting stolen goods. Dress it up in legal semantics all you want, but at the end of the day you stole it because you didn't want to pay for it.
Its not theft if you torrent stuff, content like movies/music, apps & other content are free on torrent sites for a reason.
Yes, they've been stolen and put there for other people to steal.
What these douchebags are trying to argue is that it's not the legal definition of theft when a digital copy is made since it's not a tangible item. They think that being pedantic about a legal definition somehow insulates them from their wrongdoing and law breaking. It's a way of lying to themselves about their moral fiber. I'm guessing these are the same asshats that will claim Apple stole this feature or that feature simply because some shitty, "me first" feature, like a fingerprint reader or an NFC-based payment system was first available in a different vendor's smartphone before Touch ID and Apple Pay were presented as complete and working features.
Besides thieves who download music/movies, who else uses BT?
Its not theft if you torrent stuff, content like movies/music, apps & other content are free on torrent sites for a reason.
You have to be a special kind of asshole to think that taking what is not yours isn't stealing if the risk of being caught and convicted is practically nil.
well, except for the whole "replicator" philosophical debate over what theft is in a digital age. ie, do Star Trek style replicators which can make anything, "steal" from producers? turkey dinner, romulan ale...if you can dial in a chair, did you steal that chair since a wood worker was "robbed" of the chance to make another sale? a similar argument exists for digital goods that one wouldn't or couldn't purchase legally. does a penniless child peeping into the big top steal from the circus company? is there a question of scarcity involved? etc etc.
Your argument is flawed for two reasons:
1. In the 24th century, the replicator means that plentiful energy can be converted into matter such as food, machinery and even air (which is why people don't suffocate on starships). What this means is that advanced cultures no longer have to worry about eking out a living and so can pursue noble endeavours such as stellar exploration and self-improvement. In the Star Trek universe no one gets paid because no one needs money. If someone replicates something you created, there is no damage to your livelihood. In the 21st century, stealing music and books does damage the livelihood of the creator.
2. And more importantly, your argument falls flat because none of the crap you've mentioned actually exists.
Folks, let's save time by discounting science fiction franchises from real life arguments.
Besides thieves who download music/movies, who else uses BT?
Inferring that Bittorrent is only used for piracy is identical to inferring that the Internet is only used for piracy. What you've written there spoke volumes.
The bittorrent protocol is used extensively by numerous providers (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent#Adoption ) Additionally several web technologies are built on it (also mentioned in the wiki article.)
To suggest that it's the hallmark of piracy is naive and shows an exceptional level of ignorance. It's simply a popular P2P protocol - one of a many (and not the only p2p protocol supported by Transmission).
Bittorrent happens to be the preferred distribution format for large files where an individual host is not practical, not fast enough or cost effective. (I.E. Anywhere where P2P is ideal over a single point of source, including disseminating information that hostile governments may seek to prevent.)
BitTorrent technology is useful. Many companies use it within their own software to handle large downloads or other updates.
But incorporating BitTorrent technology into your software is not the same as getting a BitTorrent client, which is used primarily by asshole thieves to steal content. I know there are legitimate users, but you can't tell me cases like yours are the norm.
Who is the bigger asshole, the person who illegally downloads a movie or Comcast? I contend there would be fewer "asshole thieves" if content were made easily accessible at a reasonable price (i.e., if there were fewer asshole content distributors)
I think a big part of the reason interest in Napster (and similar sites) plummeted was that the iTunes music store made almost all music super easy to download and use at a reasonable price.
But that's not how it is with video right now. There's a lot of video you can buy through iTunes but the price is fairly ridiculous. The content owners could do more to end piracy by doing a fair deal with Apple than by pursuing their whack-a-mole strategy with pirates.
I like that iTunes / music analogy I suspect you might be correct.
Besides thieves who download music/movies, who else uses BT?
Most of the major Linux distros who use it for downloading OS updates. All the mirrors, even those at universities offer BT versions of Linux.
Functionally (but not completely) false
All those who defend the torrent, usually cite these kinds of uses (though you didn't mention that the torrent is a option for any distro that I have ever seen (with mirrors being by far the preferred method) But... what you fail to disclose is that the overwhelming bulk of torrent traffic IS wares, video (copyrighted) and music (copyrighted) You can pretend that it has legitimate uses (and perhaps it COULD) but for now it is (almost completely) a channel for pirated goods.
BitTorrent technology is useful. Many companies use it within their own software to handle large downloads or other updates.
But incorporating BitTorrent technology into your software is not the same as getting a BitTorrent client, which is used primarily by asshole thieves to steal content. I know there are legitimate users, but you can't tell me cases like yours are the norm.
Who is the bigger asshole, the person who illegally downloads a movie or Comcast? I contend there would be fewer "asshole thieves" if content were made easily accessible at a reasonable price (i.e., if there were fewer asshole content distributors)
I think a big part of the reason interest in Napster (and similar sites) plummeted was that the iTunes music store made almost all music super easy to download and use at a reasonable price.
But that's not how it is with video right now. There's a lot of video you can buy through iTunes but the price is fairly ridiculous. The content owners could do more to end piracy by doing a fair deal with Apple than by pursuing their whack-a-mole strategy with pirates.
There is even still video media that content distributors try to make exclusive to Blu Ray. Talk about a ripe target for piracy.
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right. And just because it's right, doesn't mean it's legal.
If you can't make sense of that statement, then you're stuck at stage 4.
Its not that black and white either. Forget opinions/perspectives on the legality of it. Business is being lost due to poor business models! The idiots!
The only way to combat piracy is to offer reasonable, competitive, convenient access to buying content legally. Services like Netflix and Hulu and HBO are the right idea, but are still a long way from being solutions to this problem. Content is not readily available enough.
Here is the solution for Apple to take and run with:
Apple Video Subscription $19.99 per month. Unlimited streaming of All Movies and TV Shows on the iTunes Store.
-TV episodes immediately available after they air. -No more movie rentals. All content immediately available and included.
And while we're at it, we need to break the mold for Movies in Theaters. Movies in theaters should be available to stream from home. They should charge a comparable fair price to stream these movies during this period of time when they are only available in theaters. Something like $39.99 for 24 hours. This would virtually end CAMs and TELESYNC sharing and piracy.
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right. And just because it's right, doesn't mean it's legal.
If you can't make sense of that statement, then you're stuck at stage 4.
Its not that black and white either. Forget opinions/perspectives on the legality of it. Business is being lost due to poor business models! The idiots!
The only way to combat piracy is to offer reasonable, competitive, convenient access to buying content legally. Services like Netflix and Hulu and HBO are the right idea, but are still a long way from being solutions to this problem. Content is not readily available enough.
Here is the solution for Apple to take and run with:
Apple Video Subscription $19.99 per month. Unlimited streaming of All Movies and TV Shows on the iTunes Store.
-TV episodes immediately available after they air. -No more movie rentals. All content immediately available and included.
And while we're at it, we need to break the mold for Movies in Theaters. Movies in theaters should be available to stream from home. They should charge a comparable fair price to stream these movies during this period of time when they are only available in theaters. Something like $39.99 for 24 hours. This would virtually end CAMs and TELESYNC sharing and piracy.
I have no idea what the optimal price is, but in broad strokes, that sounds like the right solution to me. I'd be happy to pay that. Maybe a "family plan" for $30 per month.
Most of the major Linux distros who use it for downloading OS updates. All the mirrors, even those at universities offer BT versions of Linux.
Functionally (but not completely) false
All those who defend the torrent, usually cite these kinds of uses (though you didn't mention that the torrent is a option for any distro that I have ever seen (with mirrors being by far the preferred method) But... what you fail to disclose is that the overwhelming bulk of torrent traffic IS wares, video (copyrighted) and music (copyrighted) You can pretend that it has legitimate uses (and perhaps it COULD) but for now it is (almost completely) a channel for pirated goods.
I'm not sure what you're arguing. If you're saying that the the BitTorrent technology should be outlawed because it can be used for illegal reasons, then you can say the same for any OS, web browser, or search engine.
Indeed. For example: "Most users who installed BT on Macs did so for the purpose of thwarting IP regulations. Ban Mac!"
BT is an excellent technology that gets misused by some people, like Macs.
Note: actually, democracy is another thing that gets misused, and probably we shouldn't ban it, even though it does lead to extremes such as secret Transatlantic treaties designed for the express purpose of giving megacorporations power over the People
Comments
Now that's the real definition of 'blinded by greed'.
until there is better wealth distribution, don't except Asia or Russia or anyplace poor and likely legally barred from content to give a fuck about content rights.
Your argument is flawed for two reasons:
1. In the 24th century, the replicator means that plentiful energy can be converted into matter such as food, machinery and even air (which is why people don't suffocate on starships). What this means is that advanced cultures no longer have to worry about eking out a living and so can pursue noble endeavours such as stellar exploration and self-improvement. In the Star Trek universe no one gets paid because no one needs money. If someone replicates something you created, there is no damage to your livelihood. In the 21st century, stealing music and books does damage the livelihood of the creator.
2. And more importantly, your argument falls flat because none of the crap you've mentioned actually exists.
Folks, let's save time by discounting science fiction franchises from real life arguments.
The bittorrent protocol is used extensively by numerous providers (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent#Adoption )
Additionally several web technologies are built on it (also mentioned in the wiki article.)
To suggest that it's the hallmark of piracy is naive and shows an exceptional level of ignorance. It's simply a popular P2P protocol - one of a many (and not the only p2p protocol supported by Transmission).
Bittorrent happens to be the preferred distribution format for large files where an individual host is not practical, not fast enough or cost effective. (I.E. Anywhere where P2P is ideal over a single point of source, including disseminating information that hostile governments may seek to prevent.)
http://dreamingtree.org
All Legal. All Bittorent. It is truly amazing what people think they know.
There is even still video media that content distributors try to make exclusive to Blu Ray. Talk about a ripe target for piracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right. And just because it's right, doesn't mean it's legal.
If you can't make sense of that statement, then you're stuck at stage 4.
The only way to combat piracy is to offer reasonable, competitive, convenient access to buying content legally. Services like Netflix and Hulu and HBO are the right idea, but are still a long way from being solutions to this problem. Content is not readily available enough.
Here is the solution for Apple to take and run with:
Apple Video Subscription
$19.99 per month.
Unlimited streaming of All Movies and TV Shows on the iTunes Store.
-TV episodes immediately available after they air.
-No more movie rentals. All content immediately available and included.
And while we're at it, we need to break the mold for Movies in Theaters. Movies in theaters should be available to stream from home. They should charge a comparable fair price to stream these movies during this period of time when they are only available in theaters. Something like $39.99 for 24 hours. This would virtually end CAMs and TELESYNC sharing and piracy.