Technology & Gadgets

via Shashdot:

Slayer Silver Wolf writes with this excerpt from TorrentFreak:
“‘On October 26 the remaining LimeWire developers were forced to shut down the company’s servers and modify remote settings in the filesharing client to try to harm the Gnutella network. They were then laid off. Shortly after, a horde of piratical monkeys climbed aboard the abandoned ship, mended its sails, polished its cannons, and released it free to the community.’ And so, LimeWire Pirate Edition (LPE) was born. Based on the LimeWire 5.6 beta that was briefly released earlier this year and then withdrawn when Lime Wire LLC lost its lawsuit, LPE is now in the wild. In many ways, it is better than the version killed by the RIAA.”

It just goes to show you, no matter how many lawsuits, no matter how much the industry heavyweights try to shut it down, there is no plugging the hole that is online filesharing. The only way to compete is to actually compete by offering a compelling service at a reasonable price. It’s a new generation of media distribution, and until the providers realize that, they’re going to continue to see their customers flee to alternate sources – many of which won’t get any royalties back to the creators.

And here’s a hint: Blocking certain browsers from accessing your content (or making them pay for access) that’s freely available online is not going to work for long.

In a recent ruling by the Australian supreme court against ISPs being responsible for its users’ copyright infringement:

“To use the rather colourful imagery that internet piracy conjures up in a highly imperfect analogy, the file being shared in the swarm is the treasure, the BitTorrent client is the ship, the .torrent file is the treasure map, The Pirate Bay provides treasure maps free of charge and the tracker is the wise old man that needs to be consulted to understand the treasure map.”

I think the analogy is quite accurate, with the exception of the treasure being something congruous to gold doubloons. To be more accurate, the treasure would magically self-replicate itself – at first from the goldsmith’s treasure chest, and then from each pirate to have pirated a piece; but by doing so, because of the treasure’s self-replicating ability, no one is ever deprived of any of the treasure. Rather, the treasure can be spread to a much greater magnitude of pirates, many of whom may otherwise never have known about the treasure or its (magical) goldsmith. With a much greater pool of fans for his/her gold, the goldsmith would have a better chance of making money off their treasure – by making more treasures, offering them in ways that pirates would be willing to pay for, and even charging pirates to see the goldsmith work his/her magic in person.

It sure beats the model of a few goldsmiths, chosen by a handful of businessmen who advertising the goldsmith’s (often inferior) treasure on a massive scale, sell it for a greatly inflated rate, block anyone from using its magical self-replicating feature, and then pay the goldsmith a pittance for their creation.

In terms of legal precedent, it’s great that the judge actually took the time to completely understand the technical implications of the case before making a ruling. If more judges would take that much time and care in their cases, the world would be a much better place for the great majority of its inhabitants, if a little less cozy for its richest.

More case analysis at ArsTechnica.
Complete ruling at Austlii.edu.au.