Video Downloaders Beware !!!

[anabolicrhino]

MIENFOKS: VIDEO DOWNLOADER BEWARE ! ! !

Thankfully I never ever ever download copy righted material !

 

[jjohn]

Haha. Yeah, I did. Torrents are now way out of date. Way too much people are on these and it's now as corrupted as Kazaa.

 

[Rogue Drone]

Practically speaking, the anti-piracy groups can only pursue Big Uploaders. Downloading in less than monthly multi gigabit quantities is the net equivalent of jaywalking, too many transgressors to make pursuit worthwhile with ~11 million doing soon every month in the US and the tacit approval of the ISPs because it builds and sustains their customer base. The ISPs only care if you are using a lot of bandwidth.

The "reputable" P2P sites are hosted in countries where copyright violations are not on the books or enforced, not much a US authority can do to a host in Romania, for instance, and if protocol encryption is enabled to foil a sniff of content.

 

[Rogue Drone]

Haha. Yeah, I did. Torrents are now way out of date. Way too much people are on these and it's now as corrupted as Kazaa.

I think you are just working the wrong places, brother. There is safety in numbers,both legally and operationally. Just another leaf in the stream and by the time I download a file many others have already scanned said file for virii, malware and trojans, and I do too and no one, double knock on wood, is getting past my router except on my specified protocols and ports.

 

[EasyEJL]

They have no right to even issue a warrant for downloading, as they cannot show that you do not at least potentially have "fair use" right to the material without first proving that you don't own the material. There is no way for them to prove that you didn't own Barbara Streissands Greatest Hits CD already, so they can't get a warrant for anabolicrhino downloading it as MP3s.

However there is no such protection for uploaders.

 

[anabolicrhino]

They have no right to even issue a warrant for downloading, as they cannot show that you do not at least potentially have "fair use" right to the material without first proving that you don't own the material. There is no way for them to prove that you didn't own Barbara Streissands Greatest Hits CD already, so they can't get a warrant for anabolicrhino downloading it as MP3s.

However there is no such protection for uploaders.

I believe its more of a case of tracking and logging the ISPs
to support a case of "misuse" of the internet as a "piracy tool"

The ISPs could be pressure into regulations that would restrict the access of potential copyright infringing downloaders.

The reality is the the whole concept of copyright and ownership in terms of entertainment is transforming as we speak. Thanks to Youtube and other such services that embed video into flash formats. We now have access to high quality HD mpeg 4 type content.

The distribution network is now created and hosted by the end users. The television audience is down a few million right now and their corporate owners are scrambling to correct the free fall. They know they can't beat the downloaders without restricting the internet itself, so they are trying to get a legitimate piece of the pie.

They will try to convince the end users that to pay for some better quality and ease of use is worth it,like ITUNES...of course some of us will always prefer free!

 

[jjohn]

I think you are just working the wrong places, brother. There is safety in numbers,both legally and operationally. Just another leaf in the stream and by the time I download a file many others have already scanned said file for virii, malware and trojans, and I do too and no one, double knock on wood, is getting past my router except on my specified protocols and ports.

If I understand, you are just saying your files are scanned when you download them? I know all that, I am doing my CCNP. Problem is, sometimes you download a file, and it's encrypted, and/or the wrong thing completely. It's nice to disable most of your ports on your router, but you still have many doors opened.

 

[jjohn]

They have no right to even issue a warrant for downloading, as they cannot show that you do not at least potentially have "fair use" right to the material without first proving that you don't own the material. There is no way for them to prove that you didn't own Barbara Streissands Greatest Hits CD already, so they can't get a warrant for anabolicrhino downloading it as MP3s.

However there is no such protection for uploaders.

Haha, what if: You download a pirated copy of NHL 07 and get tracked while playing online. You might get a knock on your door. Beleive me. It happens. But for songs, odds are better at 6-49.

 

[EasyEJL]

I believe its more of a case of tracking and logging the ISPs
to support a case of "misuse" of the internet as a "piracy tool"

The ISPs could be pressure into regulations that would restrict the access of potential copyright infringing downloaders.

Sort of. About all the ISP could do is do like the satellite internet providers do - limit your bandwidth speed when you start to exceed average usage by more than x%. Still no legal ramification to downloading, it will just limit how fast you could download. So still no legal ramifications to downloading, just slowdowns. Even in that article, they only set up the site to catch uploaders.

There is no way for a copyright holder to show that I don't already own a copy of Akon's Konvicted (which I do, sitting in one of the 400 disc CD changers in the house) when I am downloading it. If I do own a copy, fair use allows for me to have backup and other use copies of it legally. I just can't distribute.

The reality is the the whole concept of copyright and ownership in terms of entertainment is transforming as we speak. Thanks to Youtube and other such services that embed video into flash formats. We now have access to high quality HD mpeg 4 type content.

The distribution network is now created and hosted by the end users. The television audience is down a few million right now and their corporate owners are scrambling to correct the free fall. They know they can't beat the downloaders without restricting the internet itself, so they are trying to get a legitimate piece of the pie.

They will try to convince the end users that to pay for some better quality and ease of use is worth it,like ITUNES...of course some of us will always prefer free!

I think in the end, the isp/hosting type "we didn't put the content up, we're just serving it out" defense will no longer work, and youtube will close down. Criminally its the equivalent of aiding and abetting. I actually prefer to pay for content to get the higher quality, but itunes doesn't count as the quality is ass. I'd rather buy the CDs and rip down to high variable bitrate WMA or MP3 myself. I probably own 700 cds. BMG music club is my friend. And I couldnt even guess how many DVDs, HD-DVDs and laserdiscs I own. Damn do I piss money away on entertainment

 

[jjohn]

I believe its more of a case of tracking and logging the ISPs
to support a case of "misuse" of the internet as a "piracy tool"

The ISPs could be pressure into regulations that would restrict the access of potential copyright infringing downloaders.

The reality is the the whole concept of copyright and ownership in terms of entertainment is transforming as we speak. Thanks to Youtube and other such services that embed video into flash formats. We now have access to high quality HD mpeg 4 type content.

The distribution network is now created and hosted by the end users. The television audience is down a few million right now and their corporate owners are scrambling to correct the free fall. They know they can't beat the downloaders without restricting the internet itself, so they are trying to get a legitimate piece of the pie.

They will try to convince the end users that to pay for some better quality and ease of use is worth it,like ITUNES...of course some of us will always prefer free!

The ISP's just don't like it when bandwidth is overused, so if you don't set up your own FTP Warez site, you probably won't get in too much trouble. The objective is to catch the owners of IRC sites that distribute leaked, copyrighted material.

 

[anabolicrhino]

I think in the end, the isp/hosting type "we didn't put the content up, we're just serving it out" defense will no longer work, and youtube will close down. Criminally its the equivalent of aiding and abetting. I actually prefer to pay for content to get the higher quality, but itunes doesn't count as the quality is ass. I'd rather buy the CDs and rip down to high variable bitrate WMA or MP3 myself. I probably own 700 cds. BMG music club is my friend. And I couldnt even guess how many DVDs, HD-DVDs and laserdiscs I own. Damn do I piss money away on entertainment

The only catch is by shutting down Youtube which is owned by Google who is a major force on the internet, is that mankind is denied a device that improves our collective quality of life. The majority of people who use Youtube are using it to communicate self expression with other users.

It is a current legal battle to determine whether a persons right to control distribution of something they created, so that only they can benefit from it, is more important then the quality of life needs of the greater internet world community.

It comes down to privatization versus public domain interests.

The Youtube team is having a difficult time developing a filtering system that would not hamper non copyrighted content. It will have to come from the content provider to develope an embedded code to prevent unauthorized distribution. They will have to consider the loss of possible advertising exposure, which is what drives the internet. That is why Google's part in all of this makes for an interesting case study.


I believe that everyone has the right to profit from their own creations, but not at the expense of the quality of life for the entire world.