Slashdot Mirror

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying

DC++ hub.twofo.co.uk:4144

It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 IP addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, was sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

Twofo Is Dying
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Twofo is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured University of Warwick filesharing community when ITS confirmed that Twofo total share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all file sharing. Coming hot on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Twofo has lost more share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo is collapsing in complete disarry, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Student comprehensive leeching test.

You don't need to be one of the Hub Operators to predict Twofo's future. The hand writing is on the toilet wall: Twofo faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo because Twofo is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo. As many of us are already aware, Twofo continues to lose users. Fines and disconnections flow like a river of feces.

N00b Campus users are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their total share. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Twofo sharers fool_on_the_hill and Twinklefeet only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Sources indicate that there are at most 150 users in the hub. How many filelists have been downloaded? Let's see. 719. But 1621 Ip addresses have been logged, and 1727 nicks have been sighted connecting to one user over the last term. How many searches are there? 600 searches in 3 hours. The highest sharer on campus, known as "firstchoice", or Andrew Maddison Andrew.Maddison@warwick.ac.uk in real life, is sharing over 1 TiB, despite working in ITS and not being on the resnet. He's only there so people off campus who think they're too good for bittorrent can continue to abuse the University's internet connection.

Due to troubles at the University of Warwick, lack of internet bandwidth, enforcements of Acceptable Usage Policies, abysmal sharing, retarded leechers, clueless n00bs, and ITS fining and disconnecting users, Twofo has no future. All major student surveys show that Twofo has steadily declined in file share. Twofo is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If twofo is to survive at all it will be among p2p hardcore fuckwits, desperate to grab stuff for free off the internet. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo is dead.

Fact: Twofo is dying

"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint"
That was a statement about "the youth of today".
Do you know when it was written? About 2800 years ago. By Hesiod, one of the earliest known poets(only Homer could have been earlier).
Let's skip 400 years forward.
"The children now love luxury; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in places of exercise. Children are tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties [food] at the table, cross their legs and tyrannise their teachers"
Socrates. Now let's skip another 400 years forward.
"Our young men have grown slothful. There is not a single honourable occupation for which they will toil night and day. They sing and dance and grow effeminate[the greatest insult you could give in Roman times was comparing them to a woman] and curl their hair and learn womanish tricks of speech; They are as languid as women and deck themselves out with unbecoming ornaments. Without strength, without energy, they add nothing during life to the gifts with which they were born - then they complain of their lot"
Seneca. Now let's skip another thousand years.
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence [respect] for their parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint; They talk as if they alone know everything and what passes for wisdom in us foolishness in them. As for the girls, they are foolish and immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress"
Peter the Hermit, who was a leading figure in the beginning of the Crusades. Skip forward another thousand years and we then get what we get today. In another thousand years this statement from Bill O'Reilly will be on this list from which I got those four quotations.

What's wrong with young people?

If the simulation framework would already exist, you would be right, but in the particular case you mention you're probably not: you'd have to first find out which receptors in the tastebuds are responsible and what their structure is. To be honest, computer simulation is still far away from such amazingly complex tasks.

Furthermore changing a beverage can be done fairly cheaply, you just need a small test setup to do the brewing, and then do batches after each other, you could try a lot mixes in a month. Then for tasting you could use an "artificial nose", or just do it yourself.

Anything that contains a molecular mixture with loads of different chemical interactions (I'm not even considering reactions here) is still an immense task for simulation, as all the parameters you put in to it have to be tested individually. Current simulation has strengths, e.g. in material design to test high-pressure extreme force conditions, that would be either impossible or very expensive to perform. In the case of beer-brewing probably the most in reach of simulation would be to optimize foam stability, although even that would be a pretty difficult task!

Where future genetic-based computers such as this are really going to shine is in the solving of non-polynomial problems. A solution to the travelling salesman problem alone could save millions a year in fuel for transportation companies.

I don't see these issues slowing uptake of RedHat Linux (for example). It's quite possible for a company to 'package' FOSS and add their testing, planning, implementation, and support. Asterisk appears to be a good example of these services, see this post.

Also re the 'Universities are fine' point. These days they depend on commercial services for lots of their revenue, example.

You obviously haven't heard of laser ultrasound.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/research /ultra/research/laser/

Yes - ultrasound at a distance (specifically refer to the thermoelastic regime).

By the way, is there are particular reason your response is so obnoxious or does your assumption of total superiority imbue with a compulsion to act like a complete knob.

..this fella. The Paedo Finder General, a cartoon character moulded out of the ignorance and spite surrounding such a sensitive issue. I cannot speak highly enough of the creators of Monkey Dust, the only truly entertaining spectacle that I have seen in quite a while. And series 2 has been released on Bittorrent, legit, as the BBC chickened out of releasing it on DVD in this current hysterical climate.

"..and by the power vested in by {prurient wishful thinking/mawkish documentries made by martin bashir/a bloke in the pub who knew for sure/The Daily Mail} I pronounce you Guilty of Paedophilia."

Thankfully you don't live in Scotland or any other countries where so-called shrinkwrap licenses have been ruled enforceable by the courts.

*Sigh* Every year or two for the past ten years, I get into an argument with some European professor about the qualifications of American graduated students, Usually on their knowlege of engineering of computer programs.

Thanks to this discussion, this year, I am going to have a much harder time defending them, I think.

Safety critical systems is a branch of computer science, routinely taught in the better European universities. The book I first learned it from was Safety Critical Computer Systems http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/~neil/safebook.htm

The field really got impetus after the Therac-25 failure http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/Therac_25/The rac_1.html
where a group of people got radiated to death because of a minor (in a computer sense) error in some code, thus adding new meaning to the term "execution error".

Its a vast field (google "safety critical") with large numbers of interesting published papers and few good books. I really can't remmend a current book, I haven't seen one I liked in years. I don't think you can learn it fast enough to be useful.

You also need to know a fair amount of higher math to be really competant, or at least even understand whats going on... most of the true experts in the field apparently regard english as a required second language (Math being the first language, not that I can blame them, but often it is overused)

The field seems to have suffered since the recession. and fragmented, but there is a good starting point at http://vl.fmnet.info/safety/

It also seems to be rapidly migrating to India as well, because of the resistance of American "cowboy" programmers. This time, it is possible the game of "cowboy and indians" may end up with the Indian's winning, inasmuch as the techniques are going to be essential to the new multicore programming models. (I heard a rumor Herb Sutter is investigating that, but thats just a rumor. If so, however, he would be the person to talk to about safety critical C/C++)

One of the techniques used in the field is formal verification. McGee and Kramer are coming out with a second edition of thier incredible book, Concurrency, http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~jnm/ early this year (last time I emailed them). The book is an gentle introduction to the field of formal verification and model checking, among other things. There are other books (a new one came out on the Spin Model checker, for example) but this is by far the most penetrable.

Much more interesting is the use of model checkers behind UML or BPEL/SOA tools.
Most of the really interesting stuff is still behind university walls, but tools should be appearing soon. I am trying to develop an open source grid based one but it's been slow going due to committments and resources.

Yes and no. One of my research projects involves superconducting nanowires, which are essentially one-dimensional. But wait, you say, these so-called nanowires are really wires with cross-sections of a few nanometers, therefore they're really three-dimensional.

Not really. If you look at the quantum mechanics of the superconductor, or even using the Ginzburg-Landau theory which is phemonological and ignores microscopic quantum mechanics, you find that the electronic quantum wave function doesn't want to vary too quickly. Namely - it costs too much free energy if the wave function changes substantially over a length smaller than a length scale called the Coherence Length. So if we craft a wire with cross-sectional lengths shorter than the coherence length, the wave-function won't vary throughout the cross-section. So there really is only one effective dimension when talking about transport throughout the wire. And that opens all sorts of interesting questions.

So yeah, at a fundamental level, small-enough objects can look purely one or two dimensional if you look at the quantum mechanics. For traditional electronic transport (ie, non-superconducting) you can typically regard things as not having a full dimension if the wavefunctions are 'bound' or 'free'. Namely, do they look like a particle-in-a-box (or harmonic oscillator or other bound potential) with discretely-allowed energy levels, or do they have an effective quasi-continuous band of allowable energy levels? Note that such a reduced dimension can still contribute as a degree of freedom, as represented by a quantum-number n referring to the discrete energy level. But if there aren't quasi-continuous states, it's not really a free dimension in the traditional sense.

Now back to your original question, one very common reduced-dimensional system is a 2DEG (Two-Dimensional Electron Gas), which is utilized in silicon MOSFET devices. So your computer is exploiting such 2-dimensional devices right now under your nose. (Here is a rough description ).

The tennis for two game was created in 1958...

I teach a class on videogame history, and this game of knots-and-crosses (OXO) in 1952 appears to be the earliest well documented computer game.

You can even download a simulator and play/modify it.

This version of Mandriva still has Mozilla FireFox 1.0.6

Why are version numbers important? Do you check the version number of every single package you use, and always update it even if it is one point release behind?

Realise that a distribution has a release schedule, and usually that involves imposing a version freeze, to prevent new bugs creeping into an otherwise well-understood release (with it's known bugs that must still be fixed etc). Regressions have occured in Firefox releases ... so there is no reason Firefox should be exempt (though the Firefox team seems to believe all linux distros should treat Firefox differently to the other 5000 packages they ship).

I think that major work should have been done on Heimdal Kerberos Support

So do I, but there are more important issues. And, since we don't build any packages against the heimdal libraries at present ... it's easy enough to provide updated packages for the distro later.

Because better LDAP backend support for Kerberos is critical to doing thinngs like Linux's "Almost but not quite" Active Directory.

Well, part of that requires a stable, supported LDAP server, which was one of those more important issues. The OpenLDAP packages we ship are quite decent, and all packages were rebuilt against the new major version, plus we are committed to shipping updates as 2.3.x matures (although most users of 2.3.x seem to find it more stable than 2.2.x already).

Of course, real "Active Directory" features will come with samba4, which won't be available any time this year.

So, delaying the release for one aspect would not compare to the commercial comittments Mandriva has to shipping this release in time for stocking shelves ahead of the festive season.

But, the work in preparation for samba4 will continue, and as always, packages for older releases will be made available as well.

BBC News

Gay rights activist and Slashdot editor Zonk came under increasing pressure today to explain references in his new book "Pink Box Blogging" that alleges Yusuf Islam, the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens was a homosexual guerilla fighter who worshipped Satan.

The Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie condemned Zonk's book as "outrageous blasphemy" and ordered a fatwa on Zonk's head.

The book was also denounced by Trevor Phillips, head of the Commisson for Racial Equality who said he was "extremely concerned by the unacceptable language used in the publication"

Zonk was unavailable for comment, but the Secret Lesbian Organization of Jihad Organization of Europe said "we must not rush to judgement without an informed debate"

It's nuts, isn't it? Especially with something as utterly generic (and probably free of "valuable" IP) as a sodding wireless card where I can pick up one just as good for $20 on eBay. I mean, I can understand high-end graphics cards manufacturers not giving out their specs as there probably is some very interesting stuff in there that has taken them a long while to develop, but a wireless card or a WinModem? Stupid, self-defeating and petty. Thank God for enlightened manufacturers like ralink - as a Linux user, I'm practically falling over myself to buy one of their nifty USB wireless-g pens :)

First of all there are no "missing statutes". Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 51 Section 1111 - Murder. It's right there in black and white. So you two are arguing over a myth. You should have caught that, you cannot prosecute anyone for any crime without citing the exact law that was violated. If the law doesn't exist then there can be no convicion, and there obviously cannot be any specified sentence even if there were a conviction. You do not get to "make up" laws and convict people simply because you "know" that they did something wrong and you certainly do not get to just "make up" a penalty for it.

Second, there has been a lot of revisionism trying to paint the Founding Fathers as Christian and the United States as a "Christian Nation". While most of the Founding Fathers were certainly religious and often made statements confirming that fact, in most cases it is absolutely comical to call them 'Christian', or to claim they were founding a Christian government or Christianty-based government. Go down the list of commonly known Founding Fathers and most were Deists.

Deist is "One who believes in God but denies supernatural revelation". That the Ten Commandments are not from God and *could-not-be* from God. People that reject the divinity of any scripture and reject any divinity of Jesus.

Thomas Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the Bible to strip out all miracles and divinity and recast Jesus as a philospher, as an ordinary man. Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Quincy Adams, all Deists. George Washington attended Chuch fairly often, but he refused to ever take Communion (at first walking out on the service when Communion began, and when the reverend complained about the scene that caused Washington then stopped attending any time Communion would be served), he actively refused to answer any public question for or against any belief in Christianty, his friends labeled him a Deist, and even the Reverend at the Church he attended said that Washington was NOT a Christian but rather a Deist.

And then there's James Madison - the "Father of the Constitution". Madison was Episcopalian, but he was perhaps the most vocal Founding Father for a "perfect separation between Chuch and State", and he was most emphatic against any "irrational sources of authority in the American Republic". We wrote "mysteries belong to religion, not to government; to the ways of the Almighty, not to the works of man. And in religion itself there is nothing mysterious to its author; the mystery lies in the dimness of the human sight. So in the institutions of man let there be no mystery" - that government is a "work of man" and not to allow any "mystery" (religion) into the government. He writes of a fictional opponent of our Constitution attacking it as lacking the "light of faith" and an " accomplice of atheism ". He is himself tags our constitution as an 'accomplice of atheism'. Madison answers that that is the position of a blasphemer of the freedom of religion, an idolater of tyranny, someone who wishes to persecute others.

Separation of Church and State, the 'godless constitiution', it is to ensure our freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means freedom from the force of government being used against us for any religious purpose. That the authority and purpose of governent have no grounding in religion at all. That there is no other way to truely ensure our religious freedom.

John Adams put it best: "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present li

• The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics with a very prestigious editorial board (including Knuth and Wilf), since 1994 and going strong
  
• Geometry and Toplogy, very impressive editorial board, since 1997
  
• The New York Journal of Mathematics and the The Pacific Journal of Mathematics, both general-purpose mathematics journals
  
• ACM Transactions on Algorithms, impressive editorial board, formed from Journal of Algorithms by resignation and reconstitution
  

I know that other scientific disciplines have stronger histories of expensive journals and that their typesetting needs (color photos, etc.) may be greater than that of math and CS, so perhaps it is not so surprising to see math and CS being more of the pioneers here.
There are plenty of good expensive journals now but the point is- why not have good inexpensive or free journals instead?

Fair use does not allow one to completely copy a Web site images and HTML

In fact it does.

You can go into business selling derivative copies under Fair Use.

The law to which you reffer really only says one single thing with binding legal effect, and that is:
the fair use of a copyrighted work [] is not an infringement of copyright.

That law, secotion 107, really doesn't impose any other restrictions or limitations. The part I clipped out of the middle was a nonbinding list of examples of Fair Use. The part at the end, the four listed factors, those are also actually nonbinding. They are merely a list of four factors which shall be considered. The courts are free to consider other factors as well, and routinely do so. For example they often also consider whether a use is "transformative". The courts are also perfecly free to give the four listed factors absolutely zero weight compared to any other factor they choose to consider. You can in fact "fail" on all for factors and still be absolutely Fair Use, though it would obviously be an unusal result requiring a rather unusal situation.

So all the it says as a matter of law is that the fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright. *If* something is Fair Use then all copyright restrictions are null and void. Absolutely anything and everything is permissible so long as it is indeed Fair Use.

I haven't seen the student's original website, but based on the description is sounds like an absolutely clear cut case of fair use. It does not matter that he copied almost the entire thing if it was done as a parody, and the fact that he did so for a noncommercial purpose overwhelmingly weighs as Fair Use, and the fact that he did so for political / socially signifigant purpose makes it an an absolute slam dunk.

Wal-Mart's absolutely abused the DMCA takedown procedure to rip first amendment protected speech off of the internet. It is such a flagrant abuse of the DMCA takedown process that Walmart may just be open to prosecution or countersuit. The standard to legally issue a DMCA takedown notice are insanely low, but they are not nonexistant.

Man, you open-source fanatics really think people don't have any rights in their IP. Fortunately, the US Constitution and US Copyright law disagree.

I suggest you study the constitution and copyright law, and most specifically the important Supreme Court cases on the subject. I can provide you with links to Supreme Court cases if you actually intend to read them. Cases where the Supreme Court explains there there is no inherent right to have a copyright, that the copyright holder only has the rights explicitly granted to him, explaining that there is no property right in the work itself - that it is the legal bundle of rights that is owned, that Fiar Use exists based on afirmative constitutional rights and that the copyright holder owns no rights in cases of Fair Use because congress does not have the power to create a law granting him rights over it.

Copyright is a good and useful thing, but it is not property law and you'll get all of the law wrong if you take a backwards property view. To the extent that any work of authorship is 'property', it is fundamentally public property. The initial legal state is unrestricted, public domain. The Constitution allows congress to temprarily take certain rights to it away from the public and grant them to the copyright holder. Violating the rights the copyright holder was granted is indeed copyright infringment. The copyright holder was not granted - and could not be granted - any rights over Fair Uses. Figuring out what is or is not Fair Use can certainly be a complex issue, but you can't even begin to address the issue if you start from a backwards "IP" model view that the work itself is some sort of natur

The point is that it isn't an access control mechanism designed to prevent unauthorized copying on behalf of the copyright holder. The DMCA doesn't apply in this case.

Incorrect. The DMCA clause criminalizing the act of circumventing is pretty nasty and broad, but the clause prohibiting distribution of any circumvention product is even nastier and far more sweeping.

US law Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201:
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

It applies to distributing any circumvention capability. Who the copyright holder may be on that work does not matter.

I may be the copyright holder on a Hollywood major motion picture (not just the owner of a disk, but the actual copyright holder). You still cannot sell DeCSS to the public. The fact that I might want to buy it to decrypt my own movie does not matter.

The only questions here are whether (1) the color balance itself counts as a copyrighted work (extremely unlikely) or (2) whether accessing the color balance portion of the full image (which definitely is a copyrighted work) is enough to trigger the DMCA, and (3) whether the DMCA is even constitutional.

-

I question whether a person could be liable when they don't even choose to download the particular file... it would be interesting to read the opinion of some copyright experts on this.

I'm not a lawyer, but for a lay person I'm a bit of an expert on the subject.

In my oppinion the law is quite quite broken on this point. Assuming you can't pull off a Fair Use defense, the best you can do is plead 'innocent infinger'.

US law title 17 section 504 (c) (2) sets the minimum damages to $200 per infringment.

Why is this so broken? Because everyone who surfs the web is generally going to be technically guilty and legally liable for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars - PER DAY. Lets take a hypothetical example. Lets say Slashdot copies all of those lovely little topic icons, that Slashdot had not right to use them. Well, just by loading the Slashdot front page you just downloaded over a dozen different icons and saved COPIES in your harddrive cache. You are an innocent infringer, you just went to an ordinary website and *IT* sent you whatever it felt like sending you and you had every reason to assume Slashdot was sending you legal pages. Well, as an innocent infringer you are legally liable for a minimum $200 damages PER ICON. Close to $3000 just for loading the Slashdot front page. If you surf the web you're inevitable going to come across pages with technichally unauthorized icons and other elements. In just a few hours of surfing you can easily rack up over a million dollars in liability and have absolutely no clue. On top of that a substantial fraction of the population is technically guilty of felony copyright infringment. If it were actually enforced we'd need to build more than ten times as many prisons to hold them all, the country would just collapse overnight.

The only reason we tolerate existing copyright law is because it is virtually never enforced.

-

The University of Warwick's CS department replaced its last lab of general-use Sun machines with Red Hat machines from RM a year or so ago.

The University of Warwick's CS department replaced its last lab of general-use Sun machines with Red Hat machines from RM a year or so ago.

The anonymous poster was wrong. Under US law it is not copyright infringment to install and run sofware. You do not need a license.

-

By law you do not need a license to install and run software. You are always free to decline any contract or license offer.

It would be copyright infringment for anyone to start distributing new copies of GPL software without a license, just as it would be infringment for anyone to start distributing new copies of Microsoft software without a license.

If whatever you are doing would not be infringment, for example if you just want to install and running software you bought, then you do not need a license. You can decline any contract offer or license offer and by law you are not commiting copyright infringment.

-

Dilbert is right

Would that be the part where:
(1) He implies there's something wrong with P2P software?

(2) Where he cites utterly meaningless and nonsensical polling statistics on "unlicensed commercial software is used in their profession"? (Umm yeah... I guess maybe there's at least one unknown person somewhere on earth using some "unlicensed" software.)

or (3) the repeated comments that software needs to be "licensed"? When you buy a book you do not receive or need any license to read it. When you buy a CD you do not receive or need any license to read it. When you buy software the law says it is not copyright infringement to install and run that software without any license at all. They may ship it with a contract offer and plaster the the letters "EULA" at the top of that contract offer, but you do not NEED any license at all and you can decline that contract offer. Note the letter A for agreement, without which it does not exist.

An artist is perfectly free to be a pathetic sellout for a pretty wretched propaganda peice, but if he does I hope he gets a very satisfying wad of cash out of it. He's certianly going to lose my respect, and if some guy wants to call for a boycott then I wish him luck.

Without fair use copyright law would not be constitutional i could try to explain it but i'd probably mess it up so i will reference Alsee (515537) who's post in the MGM Concedes Some Fair-Use Rights Exist article i'll repost here.

Do you realize that 17 USC Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use [warwick.ac.uk] http://www.lii.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html doesn't actually do anything? That it could be stricken from law and nothing would change? Section 107 does not define or grant fair use. Section 107 was first added to copyright law in 1976. Fair use was established by the courts in the early 1800's. It is impossible for a law passed in 1976 to grant or create something that had existed well over a hundred years. If you check the 1976 congression record when 107 was added to the text of law you'll find the legislators explicitly stated that 107 was not intended to expand, diminish, or alter existing fair use in any way. That it was merely intended to reflect the existing fact of fair use.

If you read the text of 107 very carefully the only thing is actually enforces as a matter of law is "the fair use of a copyrighted work [] is not an infringement of copyright", period. The rest of the text merely gives a list of examples of things that are usually fair use, and the last half lists four examples a court shall consider in determining fair use. Courts are perfectly free to consider other factors, and courts routinely do consider other factors such as whether a use is "transformative". The courts are perfectly free to give the four listed factors zero relative weight if they wish. So the only part of the law that actually says anything binding is that fair use is not infringment.

There is a reason the law does not attempt to define or restrict fair use in any way, a reason the law allows the courts can define fair use however they wish. The reason is that fair use was established by the courts on constitutional grounds. The court had found that the raw text of copyright law was unconstitutional. That copyright law would be struck down as null and void if the courts did not invent 'fair use' to rescue copyright from being stuck down. The courts assumed that copyright law implicitly does not actually attempt to restrict what it claims to restrict. That copyright law implicitly flees in the face of fair use, to avoid being unconstitutional and invalidated.

Most of fair use was established on First Amendment grounds. The raw text of copyright claims to restrict any and all copying. The raw text of copyright claims it would be infringment for a critical review in a newspaper to copy even a small excerpt of text for that review. The raw text of copyright law claims to make effective criticism illegal. This is an unconstitutional prohibition of vital free speech. In this case it is also a violation of the copyright clause of the constitution stating that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress. Suppressing effective review and criticism would not only burden free speech, it would be an intolerable hinderance of progress. Doubly unconstitutional, and making copyright law doubly invalid if it actually restricted what it claims to restrict.

Fair use is the embodiment of Constitutionally protected rights. Copyright does not grant ot define fair use, it is fair use which sweeps away and restricts copyright. Fair use is the
only thing saving copyright law from being null and void. Any attempt to pass a law to infringe or revoke fair use use would be unconstitutional.

Fair use does indeed trump copyright.

-
And a thank you to Alsee (515537) for that information.
So without fair use copyright law is unconstitutional as well as the DMCA so both could be struck down. So it's not wise for copyright holders to try to cut off their noses despite their faces.

Do you realize that 17 USC Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use doesn't actually do anything? That it could be stricken from law and nothing would change?

Section 107 does not define or grant fair use.
Section 107 was first added to copyright law in 1976. Fair use was established by the courts in the early 1800's. It is impossible for a law passed in 1976 to grant or create something that had existed well over a hundred years.

If you check the 1976 congression record when 107 was added to the text of law you'll find the legislators explicitly stated that 107 was not intended to expand, diminish, or alter existing fair use in any way. That it was merely intended to reflect the existing fact of fair use.

If you read the text of 107 very carefully the only thing is actually enforces as a matter of law is "the fair use of a copyrighted work [] is not an infringement of copyright", period. The rest of the text merely gives a list of examples of things that are usually fair use, and the last half lists four examples a court shall consider in determining fair use. Courts are perfectly free to consider other factors, and courts routinely do consider other factors such as whether a use is "transformative". The courts are perfectly free to give the four listed factors zero relative weight if they wish. So the only part of the law that actually says anything binding is that fair use is not infringment.

There is a reason the law does not attempt to define or restrict fair use in any way, a reason the law allows the courts can define fair use however they wish. The reason is that fair use was established by the courts on constitutional grounds. The court had found that the raw text of copyright law was unconstitutional. That copyright law would be struck down as null and void if the courts did not invent 'fair use' to rescue copyright from being stuck down. The courts assumed that copyright law implicitly does not actually attempt to restrict what it claims to restrict. That copyright law implicitly flees in the face of fair use, to avoid being unconstitutional and invalidated.

Most of fair use was established on First Amendment grounds. The raw text of copyright claims to restrict any and all copying. The raw text of copyright claims it would be infringment for a critical review in a newspaper to copy even a small excerpt of text for that review. The raw text of copyright law claims to make effective criticism illegal. This is an unconstitutional prohibition of vital free speech. In this case it is also a violation of the copyright clause of the constitution stating that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress. Suppressing effective review and criticism would not only burden free speech, it would be an intolerable hinderance of progress. Doubly unconstitutional, and making copyright law doubly invalid if it actually restricted what it claims to restrict.

Fair use is the embodiment of Constitutionally protected rights. Copyright does not grant ot define fair use, it is fair use which sweeps away and restricts copyright. Fair use is the only thing saving copyright law from being null and void. Any attempt to pass a law to infringe or revoke fair use use would be unconstitutional.

Fair use does indeed trump copyright.

-