Teach me things about torrents.

So I went to thepiratebay and found a few things I would like, but I've never done the torrent thing, and I'm kinda retarded about things like this. Can someone explain the process from finding the torrent to watching the show you want to watch?

well you need a torrent downloading program such as ABC (another bittorent client) and then (once the program is installed) you click on a link from a place that offers bittorrent downloads, such as a game production company, after you pay for the download... (they offer bittorrent downloads for some games, as it is faster than other things).. and ABC will interrupt the link and start downloading it.

I assume the process is the same for freeware and other "file-sharing" websites too, but I don't do things like that, so I cannot comment directly

uTorrent is what I used when I was torrenting, but i got a ton of viruses, and my computer crashed...it is tempting, but not recommended from me.

I use uTorrent. Just be sure to have a good Antivirus program and keep it up to date: AVG, Avast, ect, and you will be fine.

Torrents and torrent programs are simply a way of transferring files. The technology behind it is quite cool.

A torrent program talks to other computers who are downloading or seeding the same torrent. These computers swap little bits of the files back and forth. When your computer has downloaded a whole file but you're still uploading bits to other computers, you're seeding. A torrent is simply a file that identifies the bits you want to download.

It's kind of like a web browser. The browser is the torrent program, and a torrent is a link. In a web browser, you click on a link or enter a URL. Something will get loaded into the web browser - it could be a forum (a mix of text and images), it could be a video, it could even be an application. The torrent programs work the same way. You use the torrent to identify what you're going to download and the torrent program does the downloading.

It doesn't matter what it is you're downloading. It could be a document. It could be pictures of naked people. It could be videos, or music, or programs, or a whole operating system. Just like clicking on web links, you have to take a bit of care with what you decide to download. Looking for Top Gear? The links on finalgear.com are good. Looking for the WRC? Well, rallytorrents.com has disappeared but there are some sources for them. Looking for the naked people? Ah, here it gets a bit riskier...

So once you've downloaded whatever files the torrent linked you to, you watch them the same way you would as if you'd laid your hands on them any other way. Get the correct video player (VLC seems to be compatible with just about everything, but I use Media Player Classic) and enjoy.

16vCorey wrote: So I went to thepiratebay and found a few things I would like, but I've never done the torrent thing, and I'm kinda retarded about things like this.

As Keith touched on, there is nothing inherently illegal about torrents. It's what you download that makes the difference.

I will say, at least from what I've seen, the vast majority of torrents offered are illegal sharing of copyrighted material. The VAST majority. Just because the cool technology makes things possible, it doesn't make them right.

I'm just sayin'. And I'll get off my little soapbox now.

I would also venture to say that the virii are coming from what you download and click on, not the torrent ap itself, like uTorrent.

I would also venture to say that almost every executeable out there now is infected with something.

That's right, you can use torrents to download legal or illegal material. The torrent has no idea. Just like you can use a car to speed or to drive at the speed limit As for the vast majority being illegal, you may be right. But there's a lot of legal stuff out there like Linux distributions, and a lot of the legal questions still haven't been worked out.

I tend to use torrents as a time-shifting device. Just like I used to have my VCR programmed to tape the Dukes of Hazzard so I could watch it later, I'll use a torrent to pull down a show I want to watch so I can view it later. Funny, it's legal in the first case. Or, in the case of the WRC, I'll download a show I can't see any other way.

I don't use them to pull down music or movies, and the main reason for that is that there's just too much crap out there. It doesn't matter if you're using torrents, Limewire, the original Napster, whatever. The signal/noise ratio is too bad, and given a better alternative, I use it. That's why I've been an eMusic subscriber for years.

BitTorrent, like everyone is saying, is a tool. What you do with it or how you use the tool is what makes it legal or not.

I like the VCR analogy, I am going to have to remember that.

While the VCR analogy may salve the conscience, it doesn't hold water in the legal analysis. In the case of the VCR, the copy that is made (at your VCR) is an authorized copy, so long as its for a personal, time-shifting use.

Conversely, the copy you download, as a torrent or otherwise, cannot be an authorized copy because the copy it came from was not an authorized copy. A copy of an unauthorized copy can never be an authorized copy. Moreover, the distribution, exhibition, etc. of an unauthorized copy is an act of infringement.

What if I lend that tape of the Dukes to a friend to watch? Is it now illegal because it's not my personal use anymore? I don't know, my understanding of the law stops at the time-shifting aspect.

Now, recording a show on a DVR is the same as a VCR. But I suspect that's how the majority of TV shows get into the torrent wilderness in the first place. It's the equivalent of sharing a tape with a friend. Just easier to do. And that's why it's an issue now.

I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, I'm curious. There are a lot of grey areas in this mess, and the entertainment industry is really trying to figure it out. The publishing industry has realized that giving away free books sells more books. Will the TV/movie industry notice the same? Get you hooked via torrents, then sell you DVDs to stack on your wall? Works for me, I used to get the latest Corner Gas via Torrent because it was the only way, then buy the season DVD when it became available.

By the way, did you know that NBC.com has classic Knight Rider episodes for (completely legal and advertisement-filled) streaming?

Keith wrote: That's right, you can use torrents to download legal or illegal material. The torrent has no idea. Just like you can use a car to speed or to drive at the speed limit As for the vast majority being illegal, you may be right. But there's a lot of legal stuff out there like Linux distributions, and a lot of the legal questions still haven't been worked out. I tend to use torrents as a time-shifting device. Just like I used to have my VCR programmed to tape the Dukes of Hazzard so I could watch it later, I'll use a torrent to pull down a show I want to watch so I can view it later. Funny, it's legal in the first case. Or, in the case of the WRC, I'll download a show I can't see any other way. I don't use them to pull down music or movies, and the main reason for that is that there's just too much crap out there. It doesn't matter if you're using torrents, Limewire, the original Napster, whatever. The signal/noise ratio is too bad, and given a better alternative, I use it. That's why I've been an eMusic subscriber for years.

My current contract is working for the gov't (sort of, it's complicated) and instead of the "if you're caught installing things like torrent clients on our computers you're fired" that I usually hear, our computers come with a client preinstalled. We use it to distribute updates.

billy3esq wrote: A Whole Bunch of That-There Fancy Pants Lawyer Double Talk.

Keith wrote: What if I lend that tape of the Dukes to a friend to watch? Is it now illegal because it's not my personal use anymore?

I'm not sure, but probably. Fair use (the defense that time-shifting is an example of) has fuzzy edges, not bright lines. It's very fact dependent. The reason I think it's problematic is that in your hypothetical the copy is no longer being used for your personal use. One of the factors that goes into the fair use analysis is the extent to which the otherwise-unauthorized copy displaces the market for the copyrighted work.

As a practical matter, it's an infringement that can't be policed, though.

However, they hypothetical at hand is more like making a copy of the tape for your friend and/or allowing your friend to make a copy. Both of those are certainly illegal. Now that I think about it, it's more like giving away copies to strangers you found on Craigslist.

Keith wrote: Now, recording a show on a DVR is the same as a VCR. But I suspect that's how the majority of TV shows get into the torrent wilderness in the first place. It's the equivalent of sharing a tape with a friend. Just easier to do.

No, it's not equivalent. Another copy is created. There's a reason this area of law is called "copy"right. The whole point is to give the owner the "right" to control the creation and distribution of "copies." The typical torrent scenario includes several acts of infringement, including, but not limited to, the creation of the copies and the distribution of the copies.

The exceptions in the law that allow another person to create a copy, much less distribute it, are generally quite narrow. Fair use is one such example, but remember that one of the factors is whether the copy affects demand for the rights holder's own distribution. In the case of torrents, the unauthorized copies substantially displace the market for the actual work. Very few people who download the torrents are then going to buy the authorized DVD set at the end of the season.

Keith wrote: I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, I'm curious. There are a lot of grey areas in this mess, and the entertainment industry is really trying to figure it out....

Fair enough, I didn't take it that way. There's just a lot of erroneous assumptions about what is and isn't legal in copyright law. (You'd be amazed how many people think you can't infringe a copyright unless you sell a copy, for example.)

By the same token, please don't take my replies as an attempt to justify the policy. I think virtually every expansion of copyright that has occurred since the last major revision to the statute (which took effect in 1978) is an abomination, and arguably even half of that statute is as well. Don't even get me started on the DMCA or the Sonny Bono Micky Mouse Protection Act. :rolleyes:

In fact, I think it should be mandatory to distribute unauthorized copies of certain books about Miatas.

Keith wrote: By the way, did you know that NBC.com has classic Knight Rider episodes for (completely legal and advertisement-filled) streaming?

I knew that lots of rights holders were making content of, shall we say, dubious commercial value available for free download. I'm not picking on Knight Rider (well, just a little), but my point about commercial value is that it wouldn't sell as many DVD boxed sets as the Sopranos or Sex in the City or whatever. In any case, it's actually a pretty smart goodwill gesture, plus it allows them to gauge the market for whether their content might sell enough to justify a "print run."

billy3esq wrote: No, it's not equivalent. Another copy is created. There's a reason this area of law is called "copy"right. The whole point is to give the owner the "right" to control the creation and distribution of "copies." The typical torrent scenario includes several acts of infringement, including, but not limited to, the creation of the copies and the distribution of the copies.

The ease with which digital files can be reproduced and distributed is obviously a major factor here. Much the copyright law is based on physical things from what I understand. Heck, when my laptop backs itself up at night it probably makes unauthorized copies of legal things, especially since my wife's netbook shares the same network drive. Let's not even think about what happens to a file when you email it and those packets get sent all over the place.

billy3esq wrote: In the case of torrents, the unauthorized copies substantially displace the market for the actual work. Very few people who download the torrents are then going to buy the authorized DVD set at the end of the season.

Actually, I'd like to know if this is actually true. I'm not sure it is. I've got a shelf full of TV DVDs, many of them ones that I initially watched as torrents. Shows I don't care about I don't bother to download. Shows I do care about I'll buy on DVD - if they're available.

Of course, my favorite shows are ones that aren't available to me legally. Top Gear is, to some extent, but it's not the original version. WRC isn't available at all and hasn't been for years - although I used to tape the entire season and still have a stack of those tapes from when Speed showed it. Neither of these are displacing a market.

billy3esq wrote: In fact, I think it should be mandatory to distribute unauthorized copies of certain books about Miatas.

Actually, that would be a good thing! I mentioned this earlier, but the publishing industry has proven that giving away free digital copies spurs sales of books. Heck, you can read most of my Locost book online, but it still sells. An author's worst enemy isn't piracy, it's obscurity.

Actually, let's go back to Top Gear here. It's the most popular car TV show in the world, I believe. And that is, in large part, due to online file sharing. North Americans wouldn't know about it if it wasn't for torrents and YouTube. Would BBC America show it if the audience hadn't been developed via other methods?

billy3esq wrote: I knew that lots of rights holders were making content of, shall we say, dubious commercial value available for free download. I'm not picking on Knight Rider (well, just a little), but my point about commercial value is that it wouldn't sell as many DVD boxed sets as the Sopranos or Sex in the City or whatever.

They've got the big shows as well - ER, Heroes, Biggest Loser, SNL, Buck Rogers (!). Looks like they're trying to duplicate the DVR experience, complete with commercials. It's the long tail at work - it costs basically nothing for them to put it online, so every episode streamed makes a profit.

My biggest copyright pet peeve is people who consider anything on the internet as "public domain".

Keith wrote: ... when my laptop backs itself up at night it probably makes unauthorized copies of legal things ...

Probably not. There is an archival exception that covers computer backups.

Keith wrote: ... especially since my wife's netbook shares the same network drive.

I can't think of any reason that would be relevant.

Keith wrote: Let's not even think about what happens to a file when you email it and those packets get sent all over the place.

Simple. If you own the copyright in the file (e.g., a picture you took or a document you wrote) there's no infringement. You can't infringe your own copyright. If you don't own the copyright in the file (and aren't acting at the behest of the copyright owner), you're most likely infringing.

Keith wrote:

billy3esq wrote: In the case of torrents, the unauthorized copies substantially displace the market for the actual work....

Actually, I'd like to know if this is actually true. I'm not sure it is. I've got a shelf full of TV DVDs, many of them ones that I initially watched as torrents. Shows I don't care about I don't bother to download. Shows I do care about I'll buy on DVD - if they're available.

You're the exception rather than the rule.

Keith wrote: Of course, my favorite shows are ones that aren't available to me legally. Top Gear is, to some extent, but it's not the original version. WRC isn't available at all and hasn't been for years....

Market displacement is just one of several factors in the fair use analysis, and one that is typically fatal in download cases. If the rightsholders of Top Gear or the WRC were to bring an enforcement action against you they'd have a tougher row to hoe.

In the case of both Top Gear and WRC, the downloading the torrent is technically an act of infringement, but there are no damages, or at least no recoverable damages. Additionally since the copyright in either is not registered in the U.S. (to my knowledge), they wouldn't be able to sue for infringement. (Of course, they could register then sue, but, depending on timing, this will likely cut off certain damages.)

Keith wrote:

billy3esq wrote: In fact, I think it should be mandatory to distribute unauthorized copies of certain books about Miatas.

Actually, that would be a good thing! I mentioned this earlier, but the publishing industry has proven that giving away free digital copies spurs sales of books. Heck, you can read most of my Locost book online, but it still sells. An author's worst enemy isn't piracy, it's obscurity.

First, you missed the unauthorized in what I wrote. If you permit copies of your work (i.e., authorize the copies), the copies aren't unauthorized. Second, if complete copies of adequate quality were freely available, very few people, if any, would purchase authorized copies.

Keith wrote: Actually, let's go back to Top Gear here. It's the most popular car TV show in the world, I believe. And that is, in large part, due to online file sharing. North Americans wouldn't know about it if it wasn't for torrents and YouTube. Would BBC America show it if the audience hadn't been developed via other methods?

One, I'm not sure this is true. I discovered Top Gear when it was being aired on some other cable channel back in the 2005 time frame. Of course, I've been attacking your anecdotal evidence, so I can't very well claim mine is valid.

Two, the BBC has taken a remarkably permissive view of the illegal downloading of Top Gear. I suspect this is because the BBC is ultimately a non-profit entity. So long as the downloads don't substantially interfere with their mission I don't think you'll see them burn the cash and goodwill that an enforcement crackdown would cost.

Three, I'm not commenting on whether unauthorized copying is a good thing or not. I'm commenting on the fact that what many people rationalize as "ok because ..." is still illegal. As I noted above, whether this is good policy or not is a separate discussion.

Keith wrote:

billy3esq wrote: I knew that lots of rights holders were making content of, shall we say, dubious commercial value available for free download.

They've got the big shows as well - ER, Heroes, Biggest Loser, SNL, Buck Rogers (!). Looks like they're trying to duplicate the DVR experience, complete with commercials. It's the long tail at work - it costs basically nothing for them to put it online, so every episode streamed makes a profit.

That's fine, but not really relevant. The rightsholder can do whatever they want with it. You can give a copy of "Find It, Fix It, Trick It" to every man, woman, boy, and girl in the Western world if you want. If I let all of them copy mine, it's an act of infringement.

Keith wrote: My biggest copyright pet peeve is people who consider anything on the internet as "public domain".

My biggest copyright pet peeve is lawyers who don't understand copyright. One of my partners was at a hearing yesterday where the rightsholder's attorney made some arguments that should have seen him laughed out of the courthouse. I can forgive ignorance, so long as its not from people who should know better.

billy3esq wrote:

Keith wrote: ... when my laptop backs itself up at night it probably makes unauthorized copies of legal things especially since my wife's netbook shares the same network drive.

I can't think of any reason that would be relevant.

It means she has access to whatever was on my computer through that drive. Say I had a legal, purchased copy of the "Who shot JR" eposide of Dallas. My computer backs it up to the network drive, and she watches it off that copy. This is the sort of question that keeps copyright lawyers in business, I expect.

billy3esq wrote: In the case of torrents, the unauthorized copies substantially displace the market for the actual work....

Keith wrote: Actually, I'd like to know if this is actually true. I'm not sure it is. I've got a shelf full of TV DVDs, many of them ones that I initially watched as torrents. Shows I don't care about I don't bother to download. Shows I do care about I'll buy on DVD - if they're available.

You're the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not sure I am. But it's hard to say and even harder to find unbiased statistics! The networks are making a lot of money off DVD sales of TV shows, and they sell to people who originally got exposed to the shows for free and who were perfectly capable of keeping legal digital copies from DVRs. Of course, we're into the "is it right?" discussion here, not "is it legal".

billy3esq wrote: First, you missed the unauthorized in what I wrote. If you permit copies of your work (i.e., authorize the copies), the copies aren't unauthorized. Second, if complete copies of adequate quality were freely available, very few people, if any, would purchase authorized copies.

They'd have to be unauthorized, my contract with the publisher is pretty clear about that. In fact, it's quite entertaining when it comes to covering the bases of who owns the rights for future imaginary technologies. I believe "the known universe" gets mentioned, just so those pesky aliens can't pirate it Although I'm not sure a date is given - is it the universe as we know it at the time of signing, or the universe we know after the aliens come?

But the publishing industry has shown that making complete copies of adequate quality available doesn't affect the sales of authorized copies. O'Reilley studied it recently and there are a lot of people who are very interested in this subject.

There's also Radiohead's "In Rainbows" experiment. They offered the album on a "pay what you want" basis online, and also sold CDs. The CD went to number 1 in the US and the UK. Again, it's not a question of the legal aspect, but it does show that people will purchase authorized copies even in the face of available complete copies.

The success of iTunes shows this as well - it set an appropriate price point for quality copies of online music and has proven to be a massive success despite the rampant illegal filesharing. If the price and the quality of the legal alternative are good enough, people will use it.

A little off topic on how to work torrents, sorry folks! Although it's worth pointing out that Radiohead does use torrents to distribute authorized copies of some of their music.

Keith wrote: ... when my laptop backs itself up at night it probably makes unauthorized copies of legal things especially since my wife's netbook shares the same network drive.

billy3esq wrote: I can't think of any reason that would be relevant.

It means she has access to whatever was on my computer through that drive. Say I had a legal, purchased copy of the "Who shot JR" eposide of Dallas. My computer backs it up to the network drive, and she watches it off that copy. This is the sort of question that keeps copyright lawyers in business, I expect.

Watching the archival copy is the act of infringement, not the making of the archival copy. Access on its own is no different than my keeping a book on a shelf that someone else can access.

Actually, this sort of stuff doesn't come up all that often for copyright lawyers. Most copyright work is the more blatant large scale commercial rip off type stuff.

Keith wrote:

billy3esq wrote: ... If you permit copies of your work (i.e., authorize the copies), the copies aren't unauthorized.

They'd have to be unauthorized, my contract with the publisher is pretty clear about that.

In this case, you, the author, have contracted away some of your rights to the publisher. In my statement "you" is the rightsholder.

As for the surveys and what they show: the flaw in the RIAA's argument is that they assume every downloader is otherwise a paying customer, regardless of price. The flaw in the counter-argument is that it assumes every illegal downloader would be a paying customer if the price were right. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

billy3, Ok, I know that if i D.L. Top Gear, I am breaking the law, but what are the odds of the BBC frying my backside if I do?

Not that I have any plans of doing this, out of fear of the law and virii

Very low. The BBC knows Top Gear is popular via torrents, but it has adopted a laissez-faire attitude. No official sanction, of course, but they won't be able to do that.

Viruses are no more a problem with torrents than they are with any other way of getting files on your computer. Use the same precautions.

billy3esq wrote:

Keith wrote: Heck, you can read most of my Locost book online, but it still sells. An author's worst enemy isn't piracy, it's obscurity.

if complete copies of adequate quality were freely available, very few people, if any, would purchase authorized copies.

Interesting conversation.

Part of the reason that I bought Keith's book was that I'm in the target market (building a car) and that it has a reputation for offering clearly worded laymen's explanations of topics that were covered by some of my other books, but in a more engineering-and-math manner that didn't help me much. Another VERY IMPORTANT part why I bought a copy, though, was because Keith is a member of this community, and the one at LocostUSA. I've asked him questions about radiators and steering, and felt comfortable doing so because of the community aspect.

I think that content producers in some forms of media may need to nurture a community for their consumers, and participate in that community. Consumers are more likely to choose to pay for their media if they feel a loyalty/patronage towards the content producer. It's harder to choose a free-but-illegal version of a media product if you can see that doing so would have a negative effect on persons who you feel an affinity towards.

sorry....that didn't involve the legality, and thus, us a partial thread-jacking.

Keith wrote: The BBC knows Top Gear is popular via torrents, but it has adopted a laissez-faire attitude. No official sanction, of course, but they won't be able to do that.

I hope you're right, Keith, but I'm not sure....after all, they shut down Hessmo. My guess is that what appears to be a laissez-faire attitude is actually a lack of a clear plan of attack.....they'll go after final gear eventually.

neon4891 wrote: billy3, Ok, I know that if i D.L. Top Gear, I am breaking the law, but what are the odds of the BBC frying my backside if I do?

Extremely low. Going after end users is a real PITA from a legal perspective. Most likely they'll shut down the sources of torrents (FinalGear, MiniNova, etc.) first. The problem is that this is like Whack-a-Mole.

The only reason the RIAA is going after end users is to generate enough publicity to keep people from song-swapping. It's not cost effective for them, and I don't even think it has the desired effect.

I don't think the BBC is as desperate or stupid as the RIAA. Remember that the BBC is funded primarily by UK taxes. They're not losing any revenue by having people download their content.

JoeyM wrote: sorry....that didn't involve the legality, and thus, us a partial thread-jacking.

Don't feel bad, the legality discussion itself is a thread-jack.

JoeyM wrote: I think that content producers in some forms of media may need to nurture a community for their consumers, and participate in that community. Consumers are more likely to choose to pay for their media if they feel a loyalty/patronage towards the content producer. It's harder to choose a free-but-illegal version of a media product if you can see that doing so would have a negative effect on persons who you feel an affinity towards.

The media companies have figured this out. Authors are encouraged to support their books in this way, and of course that's fairly easy with the sort of niche titles I tend to write. The music industry has figured it out as well, thus the social networking sites for every band trying to build a community instead of simply pushing product.

I guess we'll find out how the Beeb feels about downloaded Top Gear eventually. They've known about Final Gear for a long, long time. I'd love to know exactly how they feel about it. Do they perceive the fan site (and downloads) as improving viewership via promotion or stealing food from the mouths of their children?