Bit Torrents - Reminder/Warning

[Vader]

With the start of the footy season, there has recently been an increase in threads/posts either requesting or giving links to Bit Torrents of various games.

Bit Torrents fall under the banner of "file sharing", which is banned under BigFooty Forum Rule #4:

Keep it legal. Discussing illegal activities is a no-no. No hacks, file swapping info or material of that nature. Publishing information injuncted or otherwise likely to cause the site grief is also not allowed. When posting articles from other sites you must give due recognition to the source including a link if possible. Posting of articles without considered comment (ie posting every article from a particular journal) is not permitted. Frac: Mid to Serious

As such, the mods will have no choice but to infract people doing this. We know you all have the best of intentions in this regard, but our hands are tied. Please don't make us infract you!

What's the difference between BTs and YouTube? Stuffed if I know. Both are a blatant breach of copyright. YouTube is supported by BF, via YOUTUBE tags while BTs remain illegal. I guess part of the reasoning may be that BF has no responsibility to police what YouTube decide to host.

 

[Smoooothy]

What's the difference between BTs and YouTube? Stuffed if I know. Both are a blatant breach of copyright. YouTube is supported by BF, via YOUTUBE tags while BTs remain illegal. I guess part of the reasoning may be that BF has no responsibility to police what YouTube decide to host.

there is no difference.....

BT's aren't illegal, it's just some(ok majority) of the content that is

 

[Vader]

there is no difference.....

BT's aren't illegal, it's just some(ok majority) of the content that is

Illegal on BigFooty.

 

[RocknRoll]

There is no specific mention of Bittorrent. Bittorrent is not illegal. Infringement of copyright is illegal in Australia. Bittorrent was initially developed as a means for software companies to release new releases without paying premium prices for hardware bandwidth. It was subsequently adopted by the file-sharing brigade (FWIW).

Perhaps the supermods should specifically state Bittorrent links (and peer to peer like Limewire) are not permitted rather than just make vague references to "file swapping". (not that it would make any difference since nobody reads the rules anyway). Technically Youtube is "file swapping" too.

 

[cmndstab]

The biggest difference between Youtube and Torrents are that Youtube is owned by a company that will remove copyrighted material if it is identified, whereas Torrents exist only on the user's computers and cannot be moderated.


In any event, regardless of the ambuity of the rule, it's been stated clearly now. You cannot post links to torrents on Bigfooty. You cannot request links to torrents on Bigfooty.

 

[Smoooothy]

Illegal on BigFooty.

they shouldn't be

seriously, what is the difference between posting a request for a tape of a game, to posting a link to a website where you can download the game, it's the same thing?

it just seems like a weird rule, we should be embracing new technologies not just flat out banning them

 

[cmndstab]

they shouldn't be

seriously, what is the difference between posting a request for a tape of a game, to posting a link to a website where you can download the game, it's the same thing?

it just seems like a weird rule, we should be embracing new technologies not just flat out banning them

I hope I don't like to sound like I'm saying "tell someone who cares", because that's really not what I'm trying to get at here, but we're just the messengers in this situation. By all means, feel free to email or PM the admins and discuss it with them, but in our case we're just told what we can and cannot allow.


Again, the difference is that if you post something illegal on Youtube, which I believe is owned by Google, it can be removed by Google. The same is not true for torrents.

 

[RocknRoll]

No secret I was carded for such a link. I have no problems with the mods for doing that as I understand their position. It was suggested I contact one of the supermods if I wanted to debate it. But really this should be open for public discussion. Congrats to Vader for making this public as it really is not obvious to newbies like me. People post Youtube links all the time so it is natural to think that Bittorrent would be OK too. It obviously is not OK but this should be highlighted as a sticky on each board.

 

[Smoooothy]

I hope I don't like to sound like I'm saying "tell someone who cares", because that's really not what I'm trying to get at here, but we're just the messengers in this situation. By all means, feel free to email or PM the admins and discuss it with them, but in our case we're just told what we can and cannot allow.


Again, the difference is that if you post something illegal on Youtube, which I believe is owned by Google, it can be removed by Google. The same is not true for torrents.

i realise that, i'm not directing my comments at you guys, just seems like a very silly rule, that you can post youtube to a video but not a bittorrent of the exact same video

 

[cmndstab]

Try to think of it as the difference between heading to a store to buy an item and buying the exact same item from the black market. Yes, it's the same item but the reality is the black market is not going to screen items to see which can and cannot be sold, the store is.


Reaching example but the best I can do


You must remember that anything that is posted on Bigfooty becomes the property of the admins and they are responsible for it. If they allow users to post links to an unmoderated torrent, they could end up liable for a copyright infringement lawsuit. In the case of a Youtube video, the responsibility for keeping it above-board falls upon Google, not Bigfooty.

 

[Mego Red]

Then what about posting links to a site, instead of a torrent? Pirate Bay looks likely to win its copyright case in the Euro High Court, and Mininova has a clause for removing copyright content if the copyright holder requests, like like You Tube.

All of these sites have multiple uses. And linking to a YouTube of illegal content is no different than linking to an actual torrent.

I get what you're saying about You Tube because most companies watch them closely and request content be taken down almost immediately if it is posted illegally. But saying no one can even mention there is such a thing as bit torrent sites when the sites are open and legal seems a bit contradictory.

 

[RocknRoll]

I was carded linking to a torrent site, not even a specific link. In fact I'm surpised I am not being carded for even mentioning Bittorrent. What if I mention Google? That is a search engine too that will come up with torrent links.

(don't worry guys I am not having a go at you, just the policy)

 

[NikkiNoo]

Congrats to Vader for making this public as it really is not obvious to newbies like me.

It obviously is not OK but this should be highlighted as a sticky on each board.

Just pulling out these two points.

As Vader mentioned above it is in the Forum rules at #4 which every poster here agreed to abide by when they joined up. It is a site wide rule and as such a sticky on each board is not required.

In order for maximum discussion threads to happen on the site, there is a 'max' rule in place for the number of stickied threads per board.

 

[Smoooothy]

i've just posted a thread on the suggestions board regarding this, see if i can get an official response from cheif or fred

if i get a reply, i'll post it here

 

[RocknRoll]

Just pulling out these two points.

As Vader mentioned above it is in the Forum rules at #4 which every poster here agreed to abide by when they joined up. It is a site wide rule and as such a sticky on each board is not required.

In order for maximum discussion threads to happen on the site, there is a 'max' rule in place for the number of stickied threads per board.

Now you are just hiding behind your mod hat.
Youtube is a form of filesharing too. You just share video files. Even if everybody were to read all the rules microscopically there is no way for the punters to differentiate one from the other. Both are "illegal" from the perspective of copyright law, yet one is accepted and the other is not. I understand the argument the mods are using but at the very least this must be clearly explained somewhere.

 

[WALL-e]

Just pulling out these two points.

As Vader mentioned above it is in the Forum rules at #4 which every poster here agreed to abide by when they joined up. It is a site wide rule and as such a sticky on each board is not required.

In order for maximum discussion threads to happen on the site, there is a 'max' rule in place for the number of stickied threads per board.

I think about 1% of BF sign ups would read the T&C though Nikki.

 

[Vader]

The purpose of this thread is to remind everyone here of the existing policy.It's a gentle reminder to people, so that we don't have to hand out infractions when all people are trying to do is help other Crows fans see the game(s).

As mods we make no comment about the rights or wrongs of the policy, but we are expected to enforce it.

This is not the place for debating the policy, because nobody here has the power to change it. The appropriate forum for that would be the Suggestions board, or exchanging PMs with the Admins.

 

[Smoooothy]

The purpose of this thread is to remind everyone here of the existing policy.It's a gentle reminder to people, so that we don't have to hand out infractions when all people are trying to do is help other Crows fans see the game(s).

As mods we make no comment about the rights or wrongs of the policy, but we are expected to enforce it.

This is not the place for debating the policy, because nobody here has the power to change it. The appropriate forum for that would be the Suggestions board, or exchanging PMs with the Admins.

which is why i have asked the question there now, as i know it isnt the fault of anyone here that the rule is in place

just think its a big double standard

 

[Deaneus!]

they shouldn't be

seriously, what is the difference between posting a request for a tape of a game, to posting a link to a website where you can download the game, it's the same thing?

it just seems like a weird rule, we should be embracing new technologies not just flat out banning them

There's no difference, besides postage & handling. The end result - i now have a copy of the game to watch - is completely the same, but the method is somewhat different. I remember in the 80's, when someone in my family's circle of friends got a new videotape of a movie someone else wanted, the video player would be unplugged and taken to the friend's house, where it would be plugged into the other video, and the video copied. Nowadays, join a file-sharing site and download a torrent. I suspect the only real change is the ease with which it can be done.

Where you say, "we should be embracing new technologies, not flat out banning them", you should probably define some terms. If "we" means people like you or I, "we" already have. If by "we" you mean society in general, then you have to split it up by (1) people who can benefit, like me and you, and (2) people who can make money from it, i.e., the people who own the copyright and so lose future revenue because no one wants to buy their product. Group 2 aren't particularly interested in embracing new technologies unless it can make them a dollar.

So, yes it's illegal (unless i am very much mistaken, it's also illegal to videotape television for your own purposes, for example to watch it later, at least i think it used to be). Group 2, in order to protect their investment, then take companies like whoever run bigfooty to court, saying they are condoning piracy by allowing links. It doesn't matter if they do or not, or that anyone with half a brain who knows about file-sharing doesn't need BigFooty to find what they want. The courts slug it out, it costs money, and sites like BigFooty don't want to close down because legal fees surrounding something which isn't their core business are chewing up their operating capital. It's easier for them to ban it so they can get on with being BigFooty. Hell, you can PM other users that you suspect of file-sharing and ask them - it stays off the boards and everyone's happy (actually mods: is that allowable? like WALL-e said, 1%...)

The one thing that makes me laugh about this is, those same companies that scream about copyright infringement, are the same who sell boatloads of blank DVDs and CDs and BluRay discs. Who do they think is buying these things, and what for??? If the vast majority is not for pirating software or music or movies, i'll eat my hat. You can buy a stack of 50 DVDs at Coles now - do you think the procurement manager for a company thinks, "wow, we need some data backup - better go to Coles!". It's laughable. Companies are saying, "we're going to sell you the items you want, and the means to copy them, so that we can make money, but you're not allowed to do it". Plus, i don't know if anyone's travelled to Bali or China lately, but you can't go there without tripping over street vendors selling deliciously cheap almost-perfect knock-offs of movies. They're making money off it, whereas i am sending it to a mate who couldn't see the footy because he had a wedding or his VCR failed. Or, because like Channel 7, they change the timeslots of their programmes and change the episode order so often it's actually easier to just download the damn things (haven't watched Lost on TV for three years, but haven't missed an episode, every Thursday the torrent is queued and watched). If these companies were really serious, they'd fix those countries where it's endemic first.

A slightly OT rant: another part of the problem is that governments are by and large, stupendously clueless about IT. Classic case: Stephen Conroy. Hands up everyone in the IT community who thinks his internet plan will work? (cue: crickets chirping). But he's going to spend $50m making the internet a safer place to be with a blacklist. Luckily, you can't take a website and rename it. He'd be better off giving that $50m to the Federal Police and saying, "hire some people to get rid of all the paedophiles".

 

[cmndstab]

It's easier for them to ban it so they can get on with being BigFooty. Hell, you can PM other users that you suspect of file-sharing and ask them - it stays off the boards and everyone's happy (actually mods: is that allowable? like WALL-e said, 1%...)

We can't exactly stop it, since we don't have access to your PMs. It's obviously not encouraged though.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

I presume my YouTube won't last forever also.

But I'll keep posting until BigPond requests for them to be pulled.

 

[Riggy1]

I presume my YouTube won't last forever also.

But I'll keep posting until BigPond requests for them to be pulled.

It sucks when the cool stuff goes. Bloody fox went out and got the Shipoopi (family guy) song gone, so annoyed about it, untill I found another one with footage.

 

[Zvim]

I guess part of the reasoning may be that BF has no responsibility to police what YouTube decide to host.

BF is protected by law not requiring you to police anything people write in forums yet BF is paranoid about law suits which is why they leap to draconian moderation.

BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 - SCHEDULE 5

91 Liability of Internet content hosts and Internet service providers under State and Territory laws etc. (1) A law of a State or Territory, or a rule of common law or equity, has no effect to the extent to which it:
(a) subjects, or would have the effect (whether direct or indirect) of subjecting, an Internet content host to liability (whether criminal or civil) in respect of hosting particular Internet content in a case where the host was not aware of the nature of the Internet content; or
(b) requires, or would have the effect (whether direct or indirect) of requiring, an Internet content host to monitor, make inquiries about, or keep records of, Internet content hosted by the host; or
(c) subjects, or would have the effect (whether direct or indirect) of subjecting, an Internet service provider to liability (whether criminal or civil) in respect of carrying particular Internet content in a case where the service provider was not aware of the nature of the Internet content; or
(d) requires, or would have the effect (whether direct or indirect) of requiring, an Internet service provider to monitor, make inquiries about, or keep records of, Internet content carried by the provider.
(2) The Minister may, by written instrument, exempt a specified law of a State or Territory, or a specified rule of common law or equity, from the operation of subclause (1).
Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .
(3) An exemption under subclause (2) may be unconditional or subject to such conditions (if any) as are specified in the exemption.
Declaration by Minister
(4) The Minister may, by written instrument, declare that a specified law of a State or Territory, or a specified rule of common law or equity, has no effect to the extent to which the law or rule has a specified effect in relation to an Internet content host.
Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .
(5) The Minister may, by written instrument, declare that a specified law of a State or Territory, or a specified rule of common law or equity, has no effect to the extent to which the law or rule has a specified effect in relation to an Internet service provider.
Note: For specification by class, see subsection 46(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .
(6) A declaration under subclause (4) or (5) has effect only to the extent that:
(a) it is authorised by paragraph 51(v) of the Constitution (either alone or when read together with paragraph 51(xxxix) of the Constitution); or
(b) both:
(i) it is authorised by section 122 of the Constitution; and
(ii) it would have been authorised by paragraph 51(v) of the Constitution (either alone or when read together with paragraph 51(xxxix) of the Constitution) if section 51 of the Constitution extended to the Territories.
(7) An instrument under subclause (2), (4) or (5) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .

BF is an Internet Content Host (ICH), an ISP is an Internet Content Provider (ICP)

This law protects BF and doesn't require you to monitor what is written in the forum. There are procedures in place if someone is placing copywrited material in the forum and it breaches fair use limitations, something a court decides, then you would get instructions to remove the content, that is the only level of moderation you are forced to make by law.

The principal of the law is not to make it easy for people to pirate but to protect ICPs and ICHs from frivolous law suits which would cripple almost every form of online service.