BitTorrent Client Transmission Gains Apple Silicon Support in Fourth Major Release

[Will Co]

It literally is not according to the only opinion which actually matters, which is the opinion of the courts:

I accept that different jurisdictions make a distinction between theft and intellectual copyright theft. In the UK, intellectual copyright theft may be considered plain theft. It depends on the circumstances and scale. You're in the US, those courts have a different approach.

Are you pointing out the difference in application of law, or seeking to defend the original point, which was that copying a file that was meant, by the owner, to be sold, is OK? Whether it's stealing, intellectual copyright theft, or whatever, it's plain wrong.

 

[Will Co]

"Literally" 😆

Not you, or nor anyway else, can prove that "depriving the owner of revenue theory." A few have tried, none succeeded. You can't prove that but for the illegal copying there would have been a sale. Most pirates download just because they can - they wouldn't have bought it.

Have you ever heard of music/movie/software pirate being prosecuted for theft? I've seen plenty sued for copyright infringement, but never theft. There is even a criminal statute for extreme cases of mass copyright infringement. Because it is literally not theft.

So to be clear, you're happy with the position that taking, copying or otherwise making use of something without paying, where it's clear that the owner of the thing requires payment, is OK. Let's set aside the legalities or specific circumstances, because they're complex and different in different jurisdictions.

 

[binaryfuneral]

I use BT to download Bluray/HD versions of the DVDs that I own. I use it with a VPN.

And now you just announced to the internet that you illegally download movies. Have fun hearing from the MPAA when they discover this.

 

[icanhazmac]

On the topic of torrents, etc. I recently started seeing this splash screen when attaching to Hilton hotel's wifi. Are hotels where people choose to do all their illegal downloading? Odd choice, I don't know about other hotel chains but Hilton usually requires your last name and room number for wifi access so I am sure they are tracking and selling data. Someone must be threatening to sue hotel chains for this obtrusive pop-up to be used.

 

[floral]

View attachment 2156641

On the topic of torrents, etc. I recently started seeing this splash screen when attaching to Hilton hotel's wifi. Are hotels where people choose to do all their illegal downloading? Someone must be threatening to sue hotel chains for this obtrusive pop-up to be used.

Don't know about other hotels but Hilton also has you login with your last name and room number. More spying, thankfully I use a VPN.

I stay at a local motel once in a while and they don't prohibit piracy. Luckily, my iPad has features that help mask it from trackers, so if they do ever scout the internet logs to see downloads, they won't know which guest is doing it. >;3

 

[alligator22]

For all the people worried about stealing money out of the pockets of James Cameron: he'll be fine. The key grip and lighting guy that worked on the film got paid already so you are not taking food out of the mouths of starving, desperate people. Disney is now censoring the original Avatar. Will the original version with the hair sex scene be available for purchase in 10 years in the US? IDK. I pay spotify for the song license because there are too many songs to download and organize. I pay the cable company for a license for tv shows. Is downloading a version that doesn't have the commericals hurting somebody? I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it.

And bit torrent was literally started by a guy who wanted to share live music that was not copyrighted. Lots of people legitimtely still use it for this. I just found 3 unreleased Bob Marley concerts I did not previously have. I'm now sharing them with other people. None of the Wailers are mad about this even if they are up in heaven.

 

[oneMadRssn]

So to be clear, you're happy with the position that taking, copying or otherwise making use of something without paying, where it's clear that the owner of the thing requires payment, is OK. Let's set aside the legalities or specific circumstances, because they're complex and different in different jurisdictions.

That's not an accurate statement of my position at all.

I make no judgement about whether something is ok or not. As you said, that judgement is more complicated and depends on specific circumstances.

My position is that it is incorrect to analogize, categorize, or characterize copyright infringement as theft. It is not theft. Theft is something else.

 

[bsolar]

I accept that different jurisdictions make a distinction between theft and intellectual copyright theft. In the UK, intellectual copyright theft may be considered plain theft. It depends on the circumstances and scale. You're in the US, those courts have a different approach.

No, it's not. In the UK, theft is defined in the Theft Act, whereas copyright infringement is defined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. These are two completely different pieces of legislation.

The definition of "theft" from the Theft Act:

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

Copyright infringement does not satisfy the "theft" definition above, as it does not permanently deprive the original copyright holder of any property.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act never mentions "theft", it mentions "infringement", e.g:

Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.

Are you pointing out the difference in application of law, or seeking to defend the original point, which was that copying a file that was meant, by the owner, to be sold, is OK? Whether it's stealing, intellectual copyright theft, or whatever, it's plain wrong.

Depending on jurisdiction and circumstances, it's not universally "wrong". As example, Fair Use (or "Fair Dealing" as it's called in the UK) has quite a number of exceptions which allow the copy of a copyrighted work without obtaining permission from the copyright holder. Some jurisdictions even have exceptions for personal use, believe it or not.

Said that, it can definitely be illegal. My point is, whether it's illegal or not, it's not "theft". I don't see the reason to insist in using what is objectively incorrect terminology to describe copyright infringement.

 

[oneMadRssn]

View attachment 2156641

On the topic of torrents, etc. I recently started seeing this splash screen when attaching to Hilton hotel's wifi. Are hotels where people choose to do all their illegal downloading? Odd choice, I don't know about other hotel chains but Hilton usually requires your last name and room number for wifi access so I am sure they are tracking and selling data. Someone must be threatening to sue hotel chains for this obtrusive pop-up to be used.

Have you ever had to suffer through the horrendous thing hotels call cable tv these days? I would be tempted to just go to whatever popcorntime equivalent there is today instead.

 

[icanhazmac]

Have you ever had to suffer through the horrendous thing hotels call cable tv these days? I would be tempted to just go to whatever popcorntime equivalent there is today instead.

No!

Though I travel quite a bit I almost never turn on the TV in a hotel room, broadcast TV has little to offer where I am concerned.

 

[Will Co]

That's not an accurate statement of my position at all.

I make no judgement about whether something is ok or not. As you said, that judgement is more complicated and depends on specific circumstances.

My position is that it is incorrect to analogize, categorize, or characterize copyright infringement as theft. It is not theft. Theft is something else.

My point is that, regardless of terminology (which may or may not be incorrect or correct depending on circumstance and jurisdiction - tricky since this is an internationally read forum) it is wrong to copy a file and make use of that copy, or distribute it, when the author or owner of that file expected to be paid for it to be used or distributed, which is likely the case for many video, audio and software files to be found on torrent sites. Wether it is actual theft, technical theft, or not theft at all, but some other harm, it is a harm.

 

[oneMadRssn]

My point is that, regardless of terminology (which may or may not be incorrect or correct depending on circumstance and jurisdiction - tricky since this is an internationally read forum) it is wrong to copy a file and make use of that copy, or distribute it, when the author or owner of that file expected to be paid for it to be used or distributed, which is likely the case for many video, audio and software files to be found on torrent sites. Wether it is actual theft, technical theft, or not theft at all, but some other harm, it is a harm.

Fair enough. I don't make judgement calls like that, except in jest time to time. The big media companies also cause a lot more harm overall, and I think the harm caused by internet piracy is mostly de minimus. I also subscribe to the Gabe Norwell theory that "the easiest way to stop piracy is ... giving those people a service that's better than what they're receiving from the pirates.” Which, they kind of are. Disney+ isn't half bad, and makes a pretty good value proposition compared to pirating.

 

[bsolar]

My point is that, regardless of terminology (which may or may not be incorrect or correct depending on circumstance and jurisdiction - tricky since this is an internationally read forum) it is wrong to copy a file and make use of that copy, or distribute it, when the author or owner of that file expected to be paid for it to be used or distributed, which is likely the case for many video, audio and software files to be found on torrent sites. Wether it is actual theft, technical theft, or not theft at all, but some other harm, it is a harm.

Again, it depends. Fair Use in the US provides many exceptions. Fair Dealing in the UK is more limited, but still allows for exceptions. Some jurisdictions, if you make a copy for personal use for some type of content it's legal as long as you don't distribute it yourself, for other types of content it's not.

The reason copyright holder interest groups insist in pushing for improper terms like "theft" when describing "copyright infringement" is exactly because "theft" is "more universally wrong" than "copyright infringement", which is a fact many copyright holder interest groups would rather have people ignore.

There are basically no exceptions allowing someone to take someone else's property without authorization with the intent of depriving the rightful owner of it, but there are quite a few exceptions which allow the copy of copyrighted content even without the permission of the copyright holder.

 

[Will Co]

No, it's not. In the UK, theft is defined in the Theft Act, whereas copyright infringement is defined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. These are two completely different pieces of legislation.

The definition of "theft" from the Theft Act:



Copyright infringement does not satisfy the "theft" definition above, as it does not permanently deprive the original copyright holder of any property.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act never mentions "theft", it mentions "infringement", e.g:





Depending on jurisdiction and circumstances, it's not universally "wrong". As example, Fair Use (or "Fair Dealing" as it's called in the UK) has quite a number of exceptions which allow the copy of a copyrighted work without obtaining permission from the copyright holder. Some jurisdictions even have exceptions for personal use, believe it or not.

Said that, it can definitely be illegal. My point is, whether it's illegal or not, it's not "theft". I don't see the reason to insist in using what is objectively incorrect terminology to describe copyright infringement.

Let’s get to the underlying issue. This posting is about torrent. Many of the files shared as torrents are copyrighted video, audio and software. Not all. Some are free to distribute. But many are copyrighted and the owner of that copyright expects to generate revenue from that work.

Whether you our the courts in your jurisdiction term the wrongful use of such media an intellectual property theft, a breach of copyright, or just plain theft, such an act is a harm. It might be criminal, it might be civil, but it’s still a harm. That’s the point.

Seeking to use legal terms to misdirect the argument, as the poster to which I replied was seeking to do, is to deflect from the point. It’s a harm. It’s wrong.

 

[bsolar]

Let’s get to the underlying issue. This posting is about torrent. Many of the files shared as torrents are copyrighted video, audio and software. Not all. Some are free to distribute. But many are copyrighted and the owner of that copyright expects to generate revenue from that work.

Agreed so far.

Whether you our the courts in your jurisdiction term the wrongful use of such media an intellectual property theft, a breach of copyright, or just plain theft, such an act is a harm. It might be criminal, it might be civil, but it’s still a harm. That’s the point.

Are you sure? Let's say as example that the jurisdiction in question is Switzerland. Let's see what the law there says...

Chapter 5 Exceptions to Copyright
Art. 19 Private use

1 Published works may be used for private use. Private use means:
a. any personal use of a work or use within a circle of persons closely connected to each other, such as relatives or friends;

Art. 20 Remuneration for private use

1 The use of the work within a circle of persons under Article 19 paragraph 1 letter a does not give rise to a right of remuneration subject to paragraph 3.

So guess what? In that particular jurisdiction it would be perfectly legal to download e.g. a copyrighted movie for personal use, e.g. watching it alone or with some friends or family. There would be no criminal nor civil consequences and no renumeration would be due to the copyright holder of the work.

Seeking to use legal terms to misdirect the argument, as the poster to which I replied was seeking to do, is to deflect from the point. It’s a harm. It’s wrong.

There is no misdirection. The point is that exceptions to the rights of the copyright holder to prevent unauthorized copies exist and they cannot be dismissed. You cannot make a sweeping generalization claiming that "it's wrong", because there are actual situations when it's not.

 

[ColdShadow]

I always thought that bit torrent has more to do with the dark web than anything really useful.

you were very wrong.

 

[ColdShadow]

Depending on your morality, it can be very, very useful.

morality?
so you think all "file sharing" and "torrents" are illegal?
that's like saying movie/music streaming is illegal and immoral altogether.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Seeking to use legal terms to misdirect the argument, as the poster to which I replied was seeking to do, is to deflect from the point. It’s a harm. It’s wrong.

I'm not trying to misdirect anything. On the contrary, calling copyright infringement "theft" is overly reductive and deceives the nature of the problem. Are you actually interested in understanding and reducing copyright infringement, or are you here just to judge people? Because all the methods and strategies we have for reducing theft do not and will never work against copyright infringement. And all your talk about "harm" and "wrong" makes it seem like you're more interested in the latter.

 

[AndyUnderscoreR]

Only if you want it to.

View attachment 2156147

None of those options resolve the issue of .part files being way bigger than necessary, they just change what the huge files are called and where it puts them.

Here's the problem. Imagine there's a 20Gb torrent with 4 files, all a 5 gigabytes in size, and you only want to download one. The way bittorrent works is that it splits the data up into around 1000 parts, called chunks, which are swapped between users. In this example the chunk size is about 20Mb. Because the chunk boundaries don't match up to the file lengths, at the start and end there are nearly always chunks that contain a bit of the file you want, and a bit of one you don't. You need these chunks to download the complete file you do want, and you need these to seed them afterwards.

The sensible way to deal with this would be to keep those two chunks that have 0-20Mb of stuff you don't want but have to have cached somewhere, the two of them using about 0-40mb of disk space, but what Transmission does is allocate the entire size of the unwanted files on your disk, just to hold these chunks! In our example that means two unwanted 5Gb files, instead of two unwanted (but necessary) 0-20Mb files!

 

[bsolar]

The sensible way to deal with this would be to keep those two chunks that have 0-20Mb of stuff you don't want but have to have cached somewhere, the two of them using about 0-40mb of disk space, but what Transmission does is allocate the entire size of the unwanted files on your disk, just to hold these chunks! In our example that means two unwanted 5Gb files, instead of two unwanted (but necessary) 0-20Mb files!

I think you are referring to this longstanding issue, which is still open.

 

[floral]

morality?
so you think all "file sharing" and "torrents" are illegal?
that's like saying movie/music streaming is illegal and immoral altogether.

I'm not saying that it's useless to people that don't use it for illegal, or grey-area purposes. However, if you commit many acts of piracy, then BitTorrent (and it's clients) will make that a lot easier for you.

 

[ColdShadow]

I'm not saying that it's useless to people that don't use it for illegal, or grey-area purposes. However, if you commit many acts of piracy, then BitTorrent (and it's clients) will make that a lot easier for you.

It’s like saying you should question your morality if you’re using a car because you can go out and run over someone with it.
and that It makes murdering people easier than when on foot..

 

[floral]

It’s like saying you should question your morality if you’re using a car because you can go out and run over someone with it.
and that It makes murdering people easier than when on foot..

It's more like using a chainsaw than a car.

 

[subjonas]

Copying isn't theft. If I copy your bike, you have your bike, and I have one too.

It’s inhibiting sales. If someone can get something for free (bike is a bad example because it costs money to physically copy it), why would anyone pay for it? It’s taking away future sales, whether you want to call that theft or anything else. That’s why copyrighting exists. It’s the reason the music industry almost collapsed.
And before you or anyone says “I would have never bought it anyway”, that’s what all pirates say, but it’s a logical fallacy because no one actually knows what they would do until they are actually in that situation. Talking about it and doing it are two very different things. I have two friends that illustrate this point very well. Both love music and in college both were poor, but the first friend often spent what little money he had on CDs because he wasn’t tech savvy and didn’t know anything about pirating, while the second friend was tech savvy and pirated all his music claiming he would never buy it anyway. But there was no way to tell whether the second friend would have found ways to pay for music like the first friend did because he was never in a situation that tested that claim. If he really didn’t want music bad enough to pay for it then he should have gone without it. By the way, many many years later he makes plenty of money and still pirates and still claims the same thing.

 

[macintologist]

It’s inhibiting sales. If someone can get something for free (bike is a bad example because it costs money to physically copy it), why would anyone pay for it? It’s taking away future sales, whether you want to call that theft or anything else. That’s why copyrighting exists. It’s the reason the music industry almost collapsed.
And before you or anyone says “I would have never bought it anyway”, that’s what all pirates say, but it’s a logical fallacy because no one actually knows what they would do until they are actually in that situation. Talking about it and doing it are two very different things. I have two friends that illustrate this point very well. Both love music and in college both were poor, but the first friend often spent what little money he had on CDs because he wasn’t tech savvy and didn’t know anything about pirating, while the second friend was tech savvy and pirated all his music claiming he would never buy it anyway. But there was no way to tell whether the second friend would have found ways to pay for music like the first friend did because he was never in a situation that tested that claim. If he really didn’t want music bad enough to pay for it then he should have gone without it. By the way, many many years later he makes plenty of money and still pirates and still claims the same thing.

The "I would have never bought it anyway" line is proven correct because people aren't willing to pay for songs and albums at those prices. But once music streaming became normalized, they, and me too as a former music pirate, decided that $10/month was 100% worth the value of what you are getting.