Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
Gideon, you would be talking out your ass now.
Without the trackers, the torrent world would fall to pieces. It is an integral part now of finding the files and feeding those torrent listing sites. Without the trackers, the files would be much harder to find. In fact, if all the trackers dropped off the face of the internet tomorrow, it would become almost impossible for people to find and download the stolen materials. From Wikipedia:
You are so seriously talking out of your ass.
You are also a very, very poor reader. I said:
|
funny arguing i am a poor reader when you don't even read your own quotes properly
"in the absence of extensions to the original protocol, the only major critical point"
the bit torrent protocol has evolved since version 1
azuerus has magnet links which allow you to discover peers just from the torrent meta data.
re-read the quote you posted and you can see that it 100% compatible with my statement
the tracker DOSE NOT participate in the distribution of copywrited material it only initiated the handshaking.
Quote:
|
clients are required to communicate with the tracker to initiate downloads
|
You want further proof, try loading the same file on multiple trackers and then only use one of the torrent files created. You will only connect to the peers in that torrent session. IT IS NOT FILE BASED TRANSFERING (like napster) BUT SESSION BASED. The tracker only initiates a session.
Quote:
This is an example only of how the rules and regulations of different countries can be applied. In this case, it is clear (at least in the US) that you don't have to actually be giving away or selling stuff to profit from it's distribution.
"fair use" doesn't mean unlimited free distrubution. Viacom reached only as far one way as youtube had reached the other. Fair use of a short (promo length) clips isn't a real issue, but putting up entire episodes or complete sequences from shows or movies is a real issue. If an end user can easily click a series of links and enjoy an entire show or movie, then fair use isn't a real issue.
Of course, you know that the viacom vs Youtube thing is ongoing, and youtube is very likely to get it's corporate dick slapped into the dirt very hard indeed.
But then again, you are mistakenly using US only law, aren't you? You argue the points only when you think they benefit you? Bad debate techniques!
|
VIACOM over reported infringement, they claimed copyright ownership of the "baby john stewart" (ie john stewart voice track overlayed on a baby talking) which is clearly fair use derivation under US law. (parody)
as well as multiple people parodying (pretending to be characters in senfield)
There is absolutely no way that claim of ownership is valid under US law
Quote:
|
As for the hackers, TPB would have to prove that the swedish affiliates are the companies that specifically hired the hackers, which is VERY unlikely. Further, I doubt greatly that the "proof" put forth by TPB is anything other than a fabrication from whole cloth.
|
I suggest you read the swedish law because you are again talking out of your ass because that is not how the law works.