A Delphi question on the changing shape of Piracy

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

That's my point. If someone posts an 8 GB file labeled "My Hawaii Vacation in HD" and it is heavily encrypted, how will anybody the uploader hasn't authorized know whats in the file? It could be the latest movie in the Cinema, or an 8 GB library. Or who knows what?

How is that different from uploading a password-protected zip file to a public DropBox share?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I did my first illicit donwload in 1984, recording on a tape a Commodore64 game which was transmitted as a modulated whistle by an FM radio station...

can you think a broader pre-internet piracy casting?

I remember that but I don't think they were pirated though. BBC Chip Shop.

Helen

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

How is that different from uploading a password-protected zip file to a public DropBox share?

The main difference I could imagine is if the encryption were built into the system. Right now, I meet a lot of people who have trouble with zip files, much less password-protected zip files. If the encryption management were streamlined into the cloud storage, that would increase the number of those kinds of files being exchanged.

However, I don't think it'd change them in enough numbers to matter. Mostly what this looks like is a CYA system for the cloud host--they *can't* know what's in the individual files, so they can't be held responsible for whatever bootlegs are present. That means copyright owners, who would be able to track down the occasional bootleg movie or album, wouldn't be able to file against the host service, just individuals.

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by fratermus

Fast, non-descript cars would be perfect for smuggling.
Backyards with fences would be perfect for growing pot.
Clothes with roomy pockets would be perfect for shoplifting.
Coca-cola would be perfect for inducing Type II diabetes.
Chef's knives would be perfect for murders in a kitchen.

Yes, we should petition our government busybodies to ban all of those things!

Of course, someday that line of reasoning that will result in ownership of a pencil sharpener as a capital crime (conspiracy to build and possess a sharp instrument). Even THINKING about it will be a misdemeanor.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Now, one of the most (in)famous names in the pirate world is going to set up a world wide Cloud storage with automatic, inherent, strong encryption on the upload. Only the uploader will have the key. (How strong the encryption will be remains to be seen.) However, the file can be downloaded by anybody who know it's there, and anybody with the decryption key can decrypt it. It would be perfect for friend-to-friend, small sale piracy.

The problem with this is that it limits access a lot while limiting risk very little. As soon as someone shares a key with the wrong person, the host will be in hot water. The people the host is hiding from are better at breaking encryption than most. Internet traffic will make it easy to identify suspect hosts.

Much easier to share encrypted files peer-to-peer or unencrypted files person-to-person. I suspect that people are already doing this -- sharing music and movies via massive usb disks.

I can definately see people setting up private networks to keep white hats and black hats from snooping their data.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by wizwor

Much easier to share encrypted files peer-to-peer or unencrypted files person-to-person. I suspect that people are already doing this -- sharing music and movies via massive usb disks.

What "massive?" A 4gb drive is plenty for a couple of recent, popular movies or most of a TV series season; bring the drive to the office, share it with whoever wants to watch those.

We all know piracy kills movie income; Avatar was just *destroyed* at the box office by all those torrents. Avengers just limped along.

[wizwor]

My desktop computer has one 320g disk, two 2000g disks, one 2000g usb disk, and two 1000g usb disks. On my desk, I have a cup of usb sticks ranging from 1g to 32g. BF, I will fill grab a couple 32g sticks. I'm old enough to think that any one of these devices is massive and young enough to know this kind of storage is not expensive or uncommon.

I have heard that piracy has helped box office sales. We went back to the theaters to see phantom menace in 3d after seeing it in 2d and purchasing it on DVD. Avatar was awful, so people who saw it probably were not motivated to go to theaters. I know I would not have paid to see it had I previewed it.

I hate the term piracy. Come january, making a backup of a DVD I purchased will be considered piracy. I think we should distinguish between making unauthorized copies of purchased content, aquiring content without purchase, and profiting from the distribution of unauthorized content.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I know this is going to be perceived as a troll, but it is not.

Piracy on the internet has been mostly done as a widespread, public accessible, clear text file transfer. Whether it was done by a central server (the original Napster) or Peer-To-Peer, it has always been about finding and uploading/downloading clear text files.

Now, one of the most (in)famous names in the pirate world is going to set up a world wide Cloud storage with automatic, inherent, strong encryption on the upload. Only the uploader will have the key. (How strong the encryption will be remains to be seen.) However, the file can be downloaded by anybody who know it's there, and anybody with the decryption key can decrypt it. It would be perfect for friend-to-friend, small sale piracy.

What I wonder, and would like to get other views on, is will this start changing the shape of piracy from wide availability piracy to narrow focus, friend-to-friend piracy, where person a know person b and wants to share something with them, but not the whole world.

I'd like to Delphi this among the Mobile Read posters.

(This it not to say I am in favor of piracy. This may be a total paradigm shift though...)

Actually, Napster was Peer to Peer. The central server was merely for holding an index to search. The client would index files available to share, then pass that along to the server. Another client running a search would submit the query to the server, and if you selected one of the files from the search results, you would be connected to the client that had the file.

And, I assume you're referring to the upcoming launch of Me.Ga. I wouldn't really call them a pirate site, no more than I would call any cloud storage service a pirate site. Any time you have people storing files online, you will have people finding ways to share it with others. Also, even though Megaupload was not an american company, they still complied with DMCA takedown requests. The problem was that some (not all, or even the majority) would share their files, and were doing so at a rate faster than MU could be expected to self police (not to mention, legally speaking, they're not obligated to self police). And by having the key being a requirement does cut down on widespread piracy, which is a huge step in the right direction, while still allowing you to share files. Being unable to share the file would negate much of the usefulness. I mean, I've used the filesharing services before, because sharing via email is a pain due to size limits. For instance, right now, I am working on a school project and we've been sharing the files for the presentation back and forth. This is all stuff we're creating, so its all legit. Recently at work we were sharing some documents. I've got hundreds of megabytes worth of procedures and notes I've written, and again, too big for email.

There is a valid place for file sharing sites. The RIAA and MPAA just needs to use the resources it has at its disposal legitimately, and not do a smear campaign and coerce governments to do its dirty work. I mean, look at how things were for the MU raid and take down. US prosecutor reached out to the New Zealand police to make the arrests. NZ ends up illegally doing wiretaps and surveillance. FBI Agents were on hand during the NZ raid. New Zealand after the raid illegally gave the US data they seized. US has not given the data back. New Zealand then admits that they bungled the paperwork and weren't entitled to seize anything during the raid. At that time, a US judge admits MU couldn't be charged because they've never been formally served, because MU does not have a US address (being based out of Hong Kong and New Zealand, and not the US). The US government gave the servers back to the colo (a company that stores and runs the servers for other companies), with orders to delete the data off them, but apparently has made copies of the data for itself. Several former MU users have sued the US government to try and get access to their data, to which the US government has continually denied. The US government has said that by placing the files with a third party, they've relinquished ownership rights over the files. In some instances, the government has accused the users of being pirates, and didn't legally own the files in the first place (one such was a sports website that had some videos it was working on, and the government claims piracy because the unreleased videos weren't fully licensed for inclusion yet). Not only that, but with the company assets still frozen by the US government, and the only ones with access to the data in question, the defense has an uphill battle. I mean, when only the government is able to access the data, and make their reasons for denial based solely on the contents of the data, how can you expect a fair fight?