If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement?

from the depends-on-who-you-talk-to dept

We've mentioned the ongoing lawsuit against ISP iiNet in Australia a few times. Basically, the movie studios are pissed off at iiNet because it didn't do much in response to letters that were sent concerning IP addresses of those that the studios believed were sharing unauthorized works. As iiNet noted, however, it didn't see why it was involved in any of this:

They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.

The trial has been going on recently, and while I haven't been following the details that closely (figure it's worth waiting for the verdict), there was one interesting tidbit. As the company had suggested earlier, it's arguing that sharing a file via BitTorrent is arguably not copyright infringement at all. That's because of the way BitTorrent works, in breaking up any file into tiny components and sharing the individual pieces. A key element of copyright law is looking at how much of the content is shared. Down in Australia, they have a "fair dealing" exception to copyright law that appears to allow for copying small portions of a work, and some precedent of short video clips not being considered infringing.

While I would be quite surprised if this argument worked (even if it may be technically correct, it's so rare that judges pay attention to the technical aspects when it comes to copyright), I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen this argued elsewhere as well. Of course, if it does actually work, it will only turn the focus back towards the question of whether or not "making available" violates the distribution right of copyright, since that would cover what BitTorrent users were doing, if they offered up any unauthorized content (even if they actually shared only a tiny fraction).

Filed Under: australia, bittorrent, copyright, fair use
Companies: afact, iinet

Entertainment Industry Wants More People To Know About OpenBitTorrent Tracker

from the for-what-reason? dept

The definition of insanity, the saying goes, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. For the past decade, the entertainment industry has sued one site or service after another that was used for unauthorized file sharing at some time. In every single case, the act of suing that site or service ended up only serving to massively increase attention and usage of those services. Suing Napster made Napster into the service to use. Ditto with Kazaa and Grokster. The Pirate Bay wasn't that big until Hollywood got Swedish authorities to raid the operations and confiscate the servers.

So, here we go again -- except this time it's even more ridiculous. Entertainment industry representatives have filed a lawsuit against the OpenBitTorrent tracker's hosting company (Update: noting that the lawsuit is against the hosting company), which is not a file sharing site or service at all. It's just an open tracker. Now, I recognize that folks in the entertainment industry aren't particularly knowledgeable about how technology works, but at some point, aren't they supposed to at least understand the basics? The tracker alone is not responsible for anything here -- and even more ridiculous is that the OpenBitTorrent guys (despite not being in the US) set up a DMCA-like process for taking down any info_hash if they want (which, by the way, was the reason the industry claimed it didn't sue Google -- because it took down links on request -- but now that OpenBitTorrent does the same thing, it's a problem?). Either way, with the rise of trackerless solutions means that even taking this site down won't much matter. Still, it makes you wonder what they're thinking over in the entertainment industry other than ways to increase their legal bills.

Filed Under: bittorrent, lawsuits, trackers
Companies: openbittorrent

Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity

from the treat-your-fans-right dept

Charles Vestal alerts us to the news that Zombieland writer/director Rhett Reese has apparently be using Twitter to shame people who were mentioning that they were watching unauthorized copies of Zombieland at home, declaring to each one: "You realize we do what we do for money, right? Same as you." This comes soon after we highlighted some directors and moviemakers have found success by embracing those who were downloading their movie, recognizing that it was leading to more sales.

And, in fact, at least some of the people that Reese called out complained that they had actually seen the film multiple times in the theater and planning to buy the official DVD once it came out as well. In other words, the reason the movie is downloaded so much is because people like it, and yes, they still are supporting the moviemakers.

So, what made Reese lash out at these fans? You guessed it. He claimed he had just watched the 60 Minutes episode on movie piracy -- the one that we debunked for being factually incorrect, and it resulted in him getting angry at these fans, without thinking through the fact that the download might not be a substitute. But, even after the fans told him they had seen the film multiple times in the theaters, he's complaining that this decreases the chances of a sequel getting made. Given the massive popularity of the film -- both in the theater and online -- that seems highly unlikely. As we've seen before, the popularity of a movie in unauthorized downloads closely correlates with its box office take in many instances. It's rarely a sign of "lost revenue," and quite often a good indicator of actual revenue. In fact, the details show that Zombieland has done amazingly well, already earning back much more than it cost. Reese has a strong and loyal fanbase who want to support him and a very successful movie on his hands. Rather than attacking them, he should look for ways to embrace them and give them more real reasons to buy.

Filed Under: bittorrent, downloading, movies, popularity, rhett reese, zombieland

More Independent Film Makers Embrace News Of Their Film Being Pirated

from the good-exposure dept

Alan Gerow was the first of a few folks to send in the news that some independent filmmakers not only discovered that their film, Ink, had ended up being widely available via Bittorrent, but that they were quite happy about the exposure. Alan sends over the email that the filmmakers sent out:

Dear Fans and Friends,

Over the weekend something pretty extraordinary happened. Ink got ripped off. Someone bit torrented the movie (we knew this would happen) and they posted it on every pirate site out there. What we didn't expect was that within 24 hours Ink would blow up. Ink became the number 1 most downloaded movie on several sites having been downloaded somewhere between 150,000 to 200,000 times as far as we can tell. Knowing there's absolutely nothing we can do about it, we've embraced the piracy and are just happy Ink is getting unprecedented exposure.

As a result, Ink is now ranked #16 on IMDb's movie meter and is currently one of the top 20 most popular movies in the world.

This all started as a result of the completely underground buzz that you've each helped us create. We've had no distributor, no real advertising and yet the word of mouth that you've generated has made the film blow up as soon as it became available worldwide. So many of you came to see the movie multiple times, bringing friends and family and many of you have bought the DVD and Blu-ray from us. All of this built up and built up and suddenly it exploded.

We don't know exactly where this will all lead, but the exposure is unquestionably a positive thing.

Ink hits Netflix, Blockbuster, iTunes and many more tomorrow! Remember to get your signed copies, t-shirts and posters at the Ink Store.

Thank you so much for the constant love and support.

Jamin and Kiowa
Double Edge Films"

Again, we've seen this with other films as well, but it's always nice to see filmmakers who realize it doesn't make sense to freak out, but to look for ways to take advantage of this as a promotional opportunity.

Filed Under: bittorrent, embrace, file sharing, films, ink

RIAA's Main Anti-Piracy Partner Appears Clueless About BitTorrent

from the fact-checking? dept

Earlier this year, the RIAA dumped its longterm anti-piracy partner MediaSentry and hired DtecNet instead. MediaSentry had lots of problems in terms of credibility, but it appears that DtecNet may be even worse. It recently came out with a report claiming that file sharing decreased massively after The Pirate Bay went down temporarily. Not surprisingly, this report is getting some press attention. The problem? The report appears to be based on a nearly comical misunderstanding of how BitTorrent works. TorrentFreak details numerous basic mistakes in the report, nearly all of which suggest the claims made by DtecNet have little, if anything, to do with reality. Considering that DtecNet is going to be leading the charge for the RIAA in any future lawsuits and various "three strikes" plans, the fact that it doesn't seem to understand how BitTorrent works suggests problems ahead.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, bittorrent
Companies: dtecnet, riaa

Label That Embraces BitTorrent Upset About Lawsuits Against Useful Services

from the shutting-down-the-tools dept

The freakbits guys have a nice interview up with Dutch indie record label Beep! Beep! that has all the music from all of its artists available via BitTorrent, with help from Mininova. In the interview, the guy from the label says that giving away music for free is no impediment to getting paid for it, as you're getting exposed to a much larger audience, many of whom are happy to pay for stuff. Two interesting points (though, neither is that surprising):

• They seem a bit frustrated that distributors shun them. Apparently plenty of distributors are worried that by giving away their music for free no one will buy. Of course, plenty of bands have seen the opposite is true, but some myths are hard to dispel.
• They're quite worried about the recent ruling demanding that Mininova block content, as it may harm their ability to get content out via Mininova:

  But now they have this new thing, where they are taking off all the illegal content on Mininova. For example if Universal comes in and says, "You have to take off this show" they do it immediately. And that is different between what the Pirate Bay does. It's a shame because I'm afraid it might be the end of Mininova.
  
  Pirate Bay provides everything, so why go to Mininova when you can already get everything from the Pirate Bay. Even if the Pirate Bay will be shut down then there will always be another torrent site, someone will come along and fill the gap.

It's an interesting point that I hadn't really thought much about. As the entertainment industry keeps trying to wac that mole, it's really quite annoying for those who legitimately embraced these tools for distribution, as they're forced to move around as well.

Filed Under: bittorrent, record labels

Movie Makers Use 'Fake' Piracy Numbers To Score Distribution Deal

from the well,-good-for-them? dept

The NY Times recently had a blog post noting that the makers of an $850,000 romantic comedy called X's and O's were thrilled that their movie was widely shared on file sharing networks, because the attention it got helped land them a big DVD distribution deal, and potentially a television deal, helped along by the attention received from that file sharing. Of course, there's just one little problem. The FreakBits guys noticed that the number of downloads the movies' creators are citing are almost certainly false. Apparently some sites post fake download numbers as a part of their advertising, and the movie makers used those fake numbers. But... it seemed to get them attention to get more deals, so more power to them. No matter what, it suggests that (once again) obscurity is a much bigger problem than piracy.

Filed Under: bittorrent, downloads, fake, movies, obscurity, publicity

Judge In IsoHunt Case Tells MPAA It Needs To Actually Prove Infringement By US Residents

from the well,-that's-a-first dept

This is a first. In the trial that the movie studios have brought against torrent search engine Isohunt, the judge has pushed back on the MPAA's claims, noting that it has failed to show any evidence of actual infringement by US users. In the past, groups like the MPAA and the RIAA have been able to get by without ever proving real infringement, but just by suggesting it must be happening. So this is quite a surprise. It makes the Isohunt case one to watch more seriously. The company may still lose the lawsuit, but at least the judge seems to want to see actual evidence, rather than having Hollywood execs insisting that these sites are killing their business just because they say so.

Filed Under: bittorrent, copyright, file sharing, infringement, proof
Companies: isohunt, mpaa

Asus The Latest To Recognize That BitTorrent Is Quite Useful

from the it-ain't-evil dept

To hear some in the entertainment industry tell the story, you'd think that BitTorrent was an evil technology designed with no redeeming value whatsoever. But, of course, there are tons of legitimate uses for it in a more efficient and economic way to distribute files by spreading the burden out. It's great for Linux distributions, for example. And now it's nice to see more and more companies recognizing that there's value in using BitTorrent technology to their advantage. Apparently, the latest is computer maker Asus, which is using BitTorrent for many software downloads. As the article points out, this is hardly revolutionary, but it is nice to see large corporations recognizing the usefulness of the technology.

Filed Under: bittorrent, distribution, software, usefulness
Companies: asus

Pirate Bay's Plans Too Clever By Half: Arbitrage Consumer Bandwidth

from the this-looks-like-a-mess dept

There's a bunch of news coming out about the sale of The Pirate Bay to GGF, though it's still not making very much sense, I'm still wondering if the deal will really happen. However, it appears that GGF has started working with Wayne Ross, who ran Grokster and Mashboxx, in an attempt to get him to negotiate with the labels. In an interview, he more or less reveals GGF's plans for The Pirate Bay.

Basically, you'll have to pay to leech, but the more resources you "contribute" to the system, the less you'll have to pay, and if you contribute enough resources/bandwidth, then you might actually make some money. Then, on top of that, they believe that some content providers/ISPs will pay for offloading their bandwidth. That explains some of the earlier statements made by GGF. In theory, the idea is that it makes everyone happy. Those who pay for bandwidth on hosting content can pay a lot less. Users who contribute bandwidth end up getting free content (or potentially even making some money). And, of course, the content owners get paid.

Except... that idyllic picture starts to break down when you start to run through the details. The second the paywall goes up, an awful lot of users will abandon The Pirate Bay for friendlier non-barrier-happy sites. That takes away pretty much the entire advantage of The Pirate Bay to make this work. Even the appeal of potentially making money probably won't attract enough users. Second problem? There's no way the economics works out nicely on this one. We've already seen the sort of ridiculous rates that the RIAA wants to charge for individual streams/downloads of music. Put those numbers into this model and start doing the math... and start laughing. There's no way that much money comes into the system. None.

Finally, it leaves out an important party who clearly will not like this setup at all -- even if all the rest of it works: consumer ISPs. The real "ingenious" part of the plan appears to be that some content hosters/service providers are effectively pushing bandwidth costs away from themselves, and dumping them on retail ISPs, who offer flat-rate connections. So the real "costs" are hidden in the typical flat-rate plans of ISPs.

It's effectively a sneaky arbitrage play, whereby The Pirate Bay tries to aggregate all the unused flat-rate ISP bandwidth, and wholesale it to others, paying copyright holders in cash, and downloaders in free/cheap content. But the ISPs whose bandwidth is getting used don't get paid, meaning they're more likely to push back even more against unlimited connection plans. I just can't see how this works.

Oh, right, in the meantime, it's not clear the recording industry has any interest in playing along. They're already demanding that cash from the sale go to them, rather than the founders. Of course, that's a bit misguided, since the founders no longer own The Pirate Bay, having handed the ownership over to others in 2006. So they won't be getting any of the money from the sale. The recording industry basically says it doesn't believe that to be true, and will use the sale as evidence that the founders should pay up. Thus, it's difficult to see them rushing out to embrace this already questionable arbitrage play.

Filed Under: arbitrage, bandwidth, bittorrent, business model, content, file sharing, wayne rosso
Companies: ggf, the pirate bay