Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

P2P Population Growing Again

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the goin-for-a-new-record-high dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Slyck news is reporting that the file-sharing population has recovered from its mid-year plateau and is once again growing. At 9.45 million users, it is only slightly below its greatest height of 9.6 million users in August. Keep in mind however; these numbers do not represent the population of the BitTorrent community, which would surely add many millions more."

66 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Trend? by jonathonklem · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article says, "Various reasons, such as returning or departing college students, broadband penetration, computer and MP3 player sales, all have an impact on the strength of the P2P community." However they missed 1 all-important factor, and that is simply that the content that's up for grabs also affects the numbers. The article goes on to say, "Indeed, the month of November 2005 represents one of the strongest months yet with a total of 9,465,000 total connected users.....", odd how that coincides with the release of Half-Life 2...

    1. Re:Trend? by Spazntwich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, Half Life 2 came out in November 2004.

    2. Re:Trend? by lilmouse · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And Narnia. If they actually released some good movies this summer, we might have seen higher P2P usage then, too.

      --LWM

    3. Re:Trend? by PhotoBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I thought Half Life 2 came out last year? Unless you mean the Xbox version, but there can't be 9.5M people with modded Xboxes surely?

    4. Re:Trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're so silly! This is obviously a side effect of letting part of the PATRIOT act lapse. Everyone knows that P2P pirates are really aiding and abetting terrorism!

    5. Re:Trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The article says, "Various reasons, such as returning or departing college students, broadband penetration...

      Since a lot of what is shared on p2p is porn, I agree that penetration is one of the driving influences.

    6. Re:Trend? by bitflusher · · Score: 5, Funny

      No it was Duke Nukem, it took forever to download though

    7. Re:Trend? by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

      "And Narnia. If they actually released some good movies this summer, we might have seen higher P2P usage then, too."

      Heh. Kinda reminds me of the old joke about N-Sync having the best anti-piracy protection ever.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:Trend? by masklinn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's also how I work (albeit mostly for music), P2P gives me "free tries", if i'm not interrested I delete the file and don't buy the disc period, if I like the group album I buy the CD.

      And most of my friends do the same, it's a convenient way to build a collection you *really* like without having to blow your money on 90% of crap.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  2. No, no, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The numbers are down. No one is using P2P. P2P is dead.

    Got it? If we keep that message up, the *AA will go away.

  3. Doesn't include Bittorrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isn't that like doing a survey of search engines and not including Google?

    1. Re:Doesn't include Bittorrent? by alfrin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, not really, the difference is there is really no way of completely determining the number of bittorrent users. There is no centralization in bittorrent.

  4. Link and stuff by maccalvin5 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a link to the actual survey. It's not too informative, but it shows the cyclic nature of the p2p userbase mentioned in the article.

  5. Bittorrent for the win by User+956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Keep in mind however; these numbers do not represent the population of the BitTorrent community, which would surely add many millions more."

    Damn right they don't. MPAA and RIAA don't quite know how to tackle that one. Kazaa et al are small potatoes compared to the really good, private, Bittorrent trackers.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:Bittorrent for the win by HighBit · · Score: 2, Informative
      Can someone please comment on how bittorrent differs from other protocols, say kazaa. Is it just that there is no one company to sue, or are the individual users harder to track and sue?

      I guess another way to ask this is this: is it safe to use bittorrent to swap copyright protected material?


      With bittorrent, you're both uploading and downloading files in the torrent. The client can both accept connections and connect to other clients. Once you get a piece of the torrent, you share that piece with other clients that request it from you. After you have all the pieces, you're considered a seed, and clients can connect to you to finish getting any pieces no one else has, if you're the only seed.

      If you're behind a firewall or a NAT, your client might not be able to accept connections. Thus, you will have to connect to clients that are not firewalled to participate in the network. This may reduce your chances of being "caught" by **AA -- they may only be focusing on people that they can connect to.

      However, the torrent tracker keeps track of all the clients that are participating in the network. This information can be freely obtained as the tracker must give it out for the protocol to work properly. Therefore, anyone who wants to can make a complete list of all the people who are participating in the torrent, and because of this, no, Bittorrent is not a "safe" way to transfer copyrighted material without a license-- unless, of course, nobody knows about the tracker and the torrent but you and your friends. Thus the private, invite-only trackers that the **AA can't get to.

      The only public and fairly safe way to swap copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder would be an anonymizing service-- such as FreeNET, or perhaps TOR, etc.
    2. Re:Bittorrent for the win by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The only public and fairly safe way to swap copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holde

      You forgot trading "used" CDs, the single safest way to pirate music known to man (and even some females).

      Of course, you could always just buy said used CDs, thereby getting a more-or-less permanent copy and arguably the legal right to rip it for personal use - And most importantly, still not supporting the RIAA (though also not supporting the artist, which really seems like the sticking point to any attempt to "punish" the RIAA by way of "voting with your wallet").

      But if you really want to safely trade copyrighted music, save your bandwidth for porn and just trade CDs (one-for-one, no money necessary) with friends, neighbors, hell, you don't even need to do it subtly since it doesn't break the law (until the "rip and retrade" part)... Post your offer on a public BB at your local supermarket or quad, for all anyone can do about it!

  6. Should ISP's shut down P2P filesharing? by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Informative
    There is a case to be made, I think, that if certain ports were disabled for home users a serious dent could be made in this P2P population -- not to mention the great deal of bandwidth freed up for more serious Internet activity.

    This is already accepted to some extent by anti-SPAM policies that forbid access to external SMTP servers, and has been used to great effect by university administrators.

    It would be far better than the legal approach, which is inefficient and expensive for all parties involved, and would prevent many viruses along with piracy.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:Should ISP's shut down P2P filesharing? by obeythefist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A very short, but dire, slippery slope that is.

      When an ISP is seen as capable of administering your traffic, an ISP can be seen as authorised to administer your traffic.
      When an ISP is authorised to administer your traffic, an ISP can be seen as responsible for administering your traffic.
      When an ISP is responsible for administering your traffic, they can be seen as responsible for turning you in to the authorities.

      No thanks. I believe in free speech. But I believe some people need to use free thought before free speech.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    2. Re:Should ISP's shut down P2P filesharing? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you also get to kill the indy scene at the same time. But hey, that's good for them too!

      P2P networks are totally legal, SOME content on them is not.

      --
      I like muppets.
    3. Re:Should ISP's shut down P2P filesharing? by captain_craptacular · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why the hell would an ISP want to do this? What other reason could anyone really have for a $60 a month 5 Megabit cable modem? If the isp limits you to legitmate web surfing and email checking no-one will need their big dollar broadband anymore...

      That and the fact (as mentioned 50 times above this post) that blocking the ports would be laughably ineffective.

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
    4. Re:Should ISP's shut down P2P filesharing? by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a case to be made, I think, that if certain ports were disabled for home users a serious dent could be made in this P2P population -- not to mention the great deal of bandwidth freed up for more serious Internet activity.

      There's a big problem with this idea: normal users don't pay their ISP for "more serious Internet activity". They pay their ISP for things like email, surfing the web, and, yes, downloading stuff from P2P networks.

      If an ISP were to block P2P activity, they'd lose a hell of a lot of customers to the competition. If all the ISPs did it, that would leave a fantastic market opportunity for a startup to take their customers away from them. That's the nature of a free market - don't supply what the customers want, and somebody else is ready to take them away from you.

      This is already accepted to some extent by anti-SPAM policies that forbid access to external SMTP servers, and has been used to great effect by university administrators.

      That only works because the majority of users are perfectly happy using their ISP's smarthost to send mail. The same does not apply to P2P traffic.

      It would be far better than the legal approach, which is inefficient and expensive for all parties involved, and would prevent many viruses along with piracy.

      You're assuming that ISPs have something to gain from stopping copyright infringement. Think about it this way: if you could wave a magic wand, and make copyright infringement disappear, would that make the average user more or less likely to pay for home Internet access? And what affect would that have on ISPs' bottom lines?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  7. It's All Criminal Activity, You'll See by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
    You know, in your heart that it's all ripping off profits of hardworking, honest, family-type people who really have to scrape to make ends meet in the record industry... you *

    Ah, crap, I can't keep typing this with a straight face...

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  8. Big Champagne by rayde · · Score: 4, Interesting

    TFA mentions that the survey was done by Big Champagne, and if i remember correctly, apps such as Peer Guardian, etc, typically block Big Champagne's IP ranges. So this could potentially misrepresent numbers of real-world P2P users. Not sure if that has been factored in, but if not, the reported numbers will definitely be on the conservative side.

    1. Re:Big Champagne by obeythefist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nonsense. If Big Champagne were competent (I will assume, as it is the most sensible thing to do, that they are), they are quite aware of Peerguardian and the likes and will have a normal, commercial broadband connection to "quietly" conduct research without obstruction.

      Peerguardian is a useful tool but it provides a dangerous and false sense of security.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  9. Summer lull by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thats because a lot of users are students, and most went home for the summer break.

    Should see a similar reducing around the Xmas holidays and spring break.

    Nothing magical here.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  10. Feds will shut them down all (at the end) by BadassJesus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's not forget what happens when you go "bigtime" with P2P.

    As this related Slashdot story http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/25/22 6228 shows.

  11. You can't stop the rock... by User+956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a case to be made, I think, that if certain ports were disabled for home users a serious dent could be made in this P2P population -- not to mention the great deal of bandwidth freed up for more serious Internet activity.

    O RLY?

    "In fact, some Bittorrent clients are pick alternate ports at random during startup to help avoid ISP filtering.

    I would recommend a high port range, like 59052-59059, and also be sure you have those ports forwarded if you own a router. I've done this with Azureus, ABC, and Bitcomet and could leech and seed fine."

    link

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:You can't stop the rock... by TenLow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's more important than filesharing? I mean really, the internet is a great resource for sharing information. If you remove the information being shared, what's left? more bandwidth for popups?

  12. No, they shouldnt by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because there are a LOT of legal uses for them. Just because something can be used improperly does not mean you should just automatically penalize those that are not.

    The 'pirates' would just go father underground and as long as you allow any connections then the data will flow. You *cant* stop all flow of data, or you wouldnt be providing a service anylonger.

    The only way to stop it is to make bandwidth so expensive its cheaper to go buy the item. ( but of course lose all your customers in the process )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:No, they shouldnt by mugnyte · · Score: 2, Informative

      Additionally, you forget one thing: The reason certain tools use certain ports or network protocols are because they were unencumbered. Once any portion of the design becomes encumbered with filtering, security checks or anything else deemed "censorship", it will be rebuilt to avoid not just the problem, but the entire *class* of such problems. This will happen for information, and to a slowly degree, hardware hacking, in a neverending march.

        Right now, you can write a P2P client that will check for credentials, register with an authorizing service, and track usage and even use a fob. But the trend of it is not going that way. I see no home-grown networks springing up that will steal mindshare from the existing "free beer" mentality.

        Without overdoing the paraphrasing of folks prior to this post, the it's not the information that must be tracked, but the ability to transfer such information with adequate private security - meaning someone must remove the ability for the internet to work as an open standard completely.

        Of course, such a thing would be completely ludicrous, since the tools and instructions to build an IP network out of almost anything readily exist, and exist off the 'net, most importantly.

        With any movement to privatize the internet through capitalization or censorship, the public can move to their own. Bandwidth, wireless networking, dual core and public knowledge of computer/information theory must be explored religiously to keep such info public and non-commoditized.

          Also, as more and more different markets use the internet, and rely on the cost-of-business of a certain clientel to be online - anything blocking, slowing, filtering, or scaring them off (notice that scaring doesn't require any change in reality), these businesses will complain. The internet is now so etched into business models that any tinkering with the "fast information-of-any-kind per price" theme will bump into negative feedback. I foresee the "pay as you enter" model sticking around for a long time, and folks starting server "channels" that bypass any packet-derived categorization. SSL may get expanded and ubiquitous, for example.

  13. Banning P2P by NotoriousGOD · · Score: 5, Funny

    The only way ISPs could block P2P is if they blocked every single goddam port excluding 21, 80 and a few others for AIM. Then someone would make filesharing that used those ports. So no worries, P2P isn't going anyway. Besides, it's part of the constitution. Remember prohibition? I don't, but I heard that shit was crazy.

    --
    Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
    1. Re:Banning P2P by canuck57 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The only way ISPs could block P2P is if they blocked every single goddam port excluding 21, 80 and a few others for AIM.

      Want a bet on this? Any service can run on any port. You can also run any protocol through a tunnel through another. Further more, you can even do a file download over DNS that looks like DNS traffic to evade detection.

      Trust me when I say an ISP would have to disconnect paying customers to stop it. Which is lucrative enough they will not. Only a fool with too much stupidity would even try to stop it.

      So long live freedmon of the Internet. No one is going to stop it.

    2. Re:Banning P2P by pdxmac · · Score: 2, Funny

      Want a bet on this? Any service can run on any port.

      You mean, like when GP said:

      Then someone would make filesharing that used those ports.

      I understand that reading multiple paragraphs or TFA is too much to ask. But, you couldn't read the next sentence in the same paragraph?

      Bad form....

  14. Enter Trusted Computing... by komodotoes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...because removing anonymity is the Holy Grail of the RIAA/MPAA strategy. They've been flogging their legal team to produce results now, and after Trusted Computing takes hold, expect the lawsuits and 'cease and desist' orders to increase (although I have great faith some smart person on the side of good will have TC broken before it goes mainstream). Lawsuits don't work now and they're not going to work in the future.



    NeverEndingBillboard.com

    --
    NeverEndingBillboard.com
    1. Re:Enter Trusted Computing... by Mr_Tulip · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The funny thing about trusted computing is that it will allow trusted computing, not just for banks, commercial websites, but also for warez groups, p2p networks etc.

      There are already many private warez/p2p groups, and with trusted computing identifying each user, they will be able to ensure that the wrong people don't get their foot in the door of these 'underground' networks.

  15. Excellent.... by teutonic_leech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good news - P2P is the thorn in the backs of music publishers that will force them to embrace legal digital distribution schemes like iTunes.

  16. things that have stopped me from downloading music by planckscale · · Score: 3, Interesting
    In order of most effect deterents:

    1. Downloading music with crappy bit rates, clicks, pops, and incomplete songs.

    2. Downloading "fake" songs that are only garbled nonsense.

    3. Downloading songs in zip or rar format that require a password to unzip.

    4. Ominous feelings that the RIAA will slap my neighbor with a cease and desist letter because he lets me use his wireless connection.

    Perhaps the record companies could take a look at #1 and release some decent quality songs with caveats. Something like reduced quality, incomplete, or with a small advert at the end of the recording that says: Purchase this song, video, and other exclusive features at www.youmustpayforyourtoppings.com. Maybe if they flood the networks with new releases with these annoyances, people will pay for legitamate full-featured, full-versioned copies.

    --
    Namaste
  17. iTunes 6 DRM Update Still Not Cracked by Powercntrl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://hymn-project.org/jhymndoc/

    If you can't buy downloadable music online without DRM, piracy begins to look pretty appealing. Pay and be restricted, or pirate and play anywhere?

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  18. Because I want to listen to it now! by od05 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was listening to Hard Attack and Sirius Radio and really started to like Between The Buried and me. Never heard of the band but liked it. I looked it up on the internet and bought two tickets to a show in town. Tickets were $13.50 each, but with the fees a set of TWO tickets cost me $47. That's almost double the price! That's a lot of money to spend on a band I've only heard on the radio a few times.

    So I tried to buy the CD on the bands website, and the store keeps fucking up. Won't let me buy it. Page acts like it's about to load up and then stops. Maybe it's because I'm using a mac, maybe it's just messed up.

    I'd like to copy the CD onto my iPod so I can listen to the whole thing first. I don't even want the CD, I'd like to listen to it tonight, don't want to wait for the mail.

    Can somebody upload a Bitorrent of the the Alaska CD please? I tried to buy it really.

  19. Logical explanation.... by Chaffar · · Score: 2, Informative
    The temporary rise in various non-BitTorrent P2P networks in November is DEFINITELY due to the launch of Azureus 2.3.0.6.

    Thousands of users made the switch after realizing that they're STILL going to have to put up with the infamous NAT Error, and it STILL drives Ubuntu users crazy...

  20. Re:Bittorrent for the win... kinda by ingoldsby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course - not everyone can use torrents. Here in Santa Barbara, Cox Cable filters out bittorrent traffic by examining the packet headers. You can't get around it by changing the port for example. Really sucks - I can't even patch WoW without it taking 2 hours unless I find a direct download.

  21. BitTorrent, indeed! by mister_llah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems to me that a 'count' of peer to peer users without including BitTorrent (at least an estimation) ... is rather pointless.

    I would figure there are at least 9 million people using BitTorrent (legitemately or not) ... and it isn't like BitTorrent is some secret to the P2P community, heck, Slyck even has a link right on their site with a bunch of info on it... so why they didn't even try to include it is beyond me.

    --
    MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
    http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
  22. Consumer Backlash? by Ilex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Legit download sales have fallen, CD sales have fallen and P2P users have increased. Hmmmm let me see If I actually want to pay for music I can choose to have either a file which may or may not work with my mp3 player or A DRM'd malware infested CD that may or may not play on my CD player. /me bashes Carrey Sherman over the head with a clue!
    DRM and financial persecutions encourage music piracy.

    I wonder if we are now seeing the beginning of the end of the music cartels as tech savy teens begin to question the moral ethics of buying music and supporting such corrupt entities.

    An industry which treats both the content creators and the fans with contempt should not survive. I'm surprised they've lasted this long.

  23. Holy crap, dude. by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Informative

    I feel really sorry for you. Switch ISPs now. Seriously. And while you're at it, publicize the fact that Cox Cable is censoring their traffic, and therefore no longer deserves the title of common carrier, and therefore is liable for the actions of their users.

    Ironically, if you think about it, they're putting themselves in danger of getting a lawsuit from the RIAA.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Holy crap, dude. by ingoldsby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I sent them an email: "I am getting a bit frustrated with your packet shaping in regards to Bittorrent. I realize that p2p torrent sharing uses a lot of your bandwidth resources, but I am unable to update World of Warcraft without it taking HOURS since they use torrents as their update protocol. Along with this, I think you may be opening up a can of worms in regards to lawsuits. If you (Cox Cable) are censoring your traffic, and therefore no longer deserve the title of common carrier, you may become liable for the actions of your users in regards to piracy, etc. Ironically, if you think about it, you are also putting yourselves in danger of getting a lawsuit from the RIAA." Used a bit of your wording, just for fun ;)

  24. ummmm by arrrrg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    last i heard, bittorrent made up more than 1/3 of all internet traffic (not just P2P). i'm not sure what proportion of traffic is p2p in general, but bittorrent is almost certainly the biggest piece of the pie.

  25. 9.45 million users... by rampant+mac · · Score: 4, Funny
    "At 9.45 million users, it is only slightly below its greatest height of 9.6 million users in August."

    I hate being the one asking, but, I gotta wonder...

    How many trillions of megabytes is that, in porn?

    --
    I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    1. Re:9.45 million users... by dotoole · · Score: 3, Funny

      Approx 123,542,355,931 DDDs (Debbie Does Dallas)

  26. Re:Fucking thieves. by bryan8m · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obviously, most people don't think it's unethical to download music. And when the majority of society disagrees with one of its laws, that law will change. At least it should.

  27. ethics shouldn't be dictated by the masses by geekee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Obviously, most people don't think it's unethical to download music. And when the majority of society disagrees with one of its laws, that law will change. At least it should."

    At one time the majority of people believed that slavery was acceptable. Ethics shouldn't be dictated by the whims of the majority, but instead on rational thought. So, if you believe there is nothing wrong with violating copyright in downloading music, justify your opinion with a reasonable explanation. Don't just say it's ok because everyone is doing it.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
    1. Re:ethics shouldn't be dictated by the masses by imemyself · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our government is "supposed" to be by the people, for the people, and of the people. The laws should be similar to people's opinions. If large numbers of people are breaking a law, then that "law" should absolutely not be a law. If we had reprsentitives that actually represented people, instead of companies then maybe things would be a little bit more like that now. If the representitives of the 17/1800's actually represented everyone instead of just the white males, then slavery probably wouldn't have been legal. What you are suggesting is that one person or group basically do whatever they feel is "right," irregardless of whatever the populace thinks. Terms such as dictatorship, totalitarianism, and despotism come to mind. "Rational thought" is totally subjective. Hitler thought exterminating the Jews was "rational." Evidently our President thinks spying on the public is rational. And Hilary Rosen thinks suing kids for thousands of dollars is rational.

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    2. Re:ethics shouldn't be dictated by the masses by Stalyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At one time the majority of people believed that slavery was acceptable. Ethics shouldn't be dictated by the whims of the majority, but instead on rational thought. So, if you believe there is nothing wrong with violating copyright in downloading music, justify your opinion with a reasonable explanation. Don't just say it's ok because everyone is doing it.

      A logical argument always starts with some assumptions. If you want to argue ethics you always start with your beliefs. However what you believe is no way tied to some universal truth. There is no "ethical truth" or what Kant called the categorical imperative.

      The reason slavery is unacceptable today is because the vast majority of the world believes that it is wrong. The ideas of personal freedom and free-will have spread around the world. That is why is it unlawful. It is not because we discovered some truth about slavery similar to the way people recognized the Earth rotates around the Sun.

      Slavery might return one day when people's attitudes change. You may claim that it is unethical and they would say it is not. Both views stand on similar ground. However people may one day think the Sun rotates around the Earth but it will not change the actual truth.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    3. Re:ethics shouldn't be dictated by the masses by Brother+Seamus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "At one time the majority of people believed that slavery was acceptable."

      Not if you count slaves as 'people'...

    4. Re:ethics shouldn't be dictated by the masses by Antiocheian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "At one time the majority of people believed that slavery was acceptable"

      And then, at a later time, people believed that slavery was unacceptable and thats how it ended.

      This is the point of the original poster I believe; people don't think copying music is unethical that's why practically everybody with the means to do it is doing it.

      And that's why the laws will change.

  28. Re:Bittorrent for the win... kinda by td4guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Try switching to port 1720, the standard VoIP port. It works with Rogers Cable in Canada. They don't run packet shapers on any traffic on that port, for fear of lagging VoIP calls.

  29. Re:Bittorrent for the win... kinda by tenton · · Score: 3, Informative

    Call them every other day about it. Say you can't play WoW correctly. Encourage all the other WoW players in the area with Cox to do the same. It's impacting a very important usage (WoW being very popular, still).

  30. Re:Bittorrent for the win... kinda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Or you can switch to a client that encrypts the header. I know that in the world of private tracker BitComet is hated, but it really is a great client once you disable DHT tracking and enable header encryption, although Azureus may support it, too. My university also filters bittorent headers, but once those headers were encrypted, I was back in business.

  31. Re:Fucking thieves. by lamber45 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    9 million people is not "most people". It's not even 1% of the people on the planet. In fact, there are probably more illegal Mexicans in the United States than illegal file-sharers in the world. Hrm...

  32. Besides P2P filesharing... by cciRRus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is an upcoming new use of the P2P distribution model: P2P TV.

    Instead of downloading videos off eDonkey and then watch them afterwards, I watch video streams "live" with PPLive.

    Stay tuned, I'm guessing that P2P TV is the next big thing after Napster/KaZaA/eDonkey!

    --
    w00t
  33. Aren't people scared? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Didn't MPAA scare everyone into accessing P2P networks? -Oh, wait! I guess it didn't.

    It is one of those things that most people don't feel like it is a crime and there is nothing MPAA and RIAA can do. No amount of lawsuits, no amount of sappy ads before every movie in the theatres showing poor set designers that are now starving because those pirates stole the bread from their kid's table, is going to change that. Because people don't think it is such a big crime to share and download mp3 files and movies.

    I am not saying whether it is good or bad, or that it is right to download music from P2P without paying for it - all I am saying is that most people don't see it as such a bad thing. As it turns out the order and peace and quiet in a most societies is not kept by police or any forceful tactics, but by the fact that the majority of the citizens like it that way. For example if tomorrow morning everyone got it into their heads that pillaging, vandalism, looting and killing each other is perfectly "ok" there will not be enough police or lawyers or soldiers to stop everyone acting in that manner.

    I think the same goes for illegal file sharing, the majority of people don't see it as a particularly bad thing and they will continue to do it. In fact what people finally see is how Sony/BMG, Universal, EMI and friends have been screwing everyone all these years by selling crappy music for $15-$20 a disk. The artists weren't getting the money - it was all going into building vacation homes and buying Ferrari's for the executives of those production companies.

    Now someone might say that the laws in our supposedly democratic society clearly reflect the attitudes and the will of the majority of people, so how come downloading is still illegal. I think it is because the laws today are created by those who have large amounts of accumulated wealth and can sponsor and lobby the Congress to make it pass whatever they want. Also, when is the last time any of us contacted our local Congressman and petitioned him for anything?

    I think the best the recording companies can do is to bite the bullet and re-structure their business accepting that the old days when they could make billions by selling overpriced crap are coming to an end.

    1. Re:Aren't people scared? by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Crime? Tell me who's the criminal here.

      In one corner, we have people who infringe copyrights.
      In the other, we have corporations who spy on people, subvert computer security and massively breach laws they lobbed for themselves.

      The former is the same crime as copying the recipe of a prize-winning bakery. Sure, you take away profits the inventor of the recipe would get -- but you don't even steal a single cookie. Or, as another analogy, copying the dress design of a lady who paid bazillions to go to a royal ball in an unique dress -- and suddenly some pesky commoners wear the same. Yes, she is hurt in some way.
      The latter is a case of break-in, overturning all possessions of the victim looking for allegedly "stolen" property, beating the victim in the face and threatening him with further actions of your gang.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  34. Uh, what? by gottabeme · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know what "infamous NAT Error" you are talking about. If you correctly configure your NAT device and Azureus, it works just fine. I run Debian through a NAT'ed DSL connection, through ports that I chose and configured, and it's fine. The "NAT Error" link you gave simply explains how to correctly configure things, and the Ubuntu problem you linked to has nothing to do with NATs, it has to do with Ubuntu's native Java support, which can be fixed by users. I hardly think the number of Ubuntu Azureus users has anything to do with these statistics.

    --
    "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  35. Not the best way to word an email. by spoco2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That really isn't the way to word an email on such a topic to a corporation, you need to be more formal...
    -------------
    To Whom it may concern,

    I have noticed that you are shaping packets (*are they shaping, or are they blocking the traffic?*) which you identify as being BitTorrent traffic (http://www.bittorrent.com/). I assume your reasoning behind this is that BitTorrent traffic accounts for a very high percentage of overall bandwidth usage on your network and your assumption that all BitTorrent traffic is of an illegal nature.

    However your actions are affecting many completely legitimate uses of the internet and are making your service severely crippled for many of us. For instance, the most popular online game in the world at present is World of Warcraft (WoW). This game, as most do, supply occasionaly patches and updates which require downloading of sometimes quite substantial volumes of data. BitTorrent makes this method faster for the end users (myself included), and reduces the load on the company's servers also, allowing more people to download the content in a far shorter time. Apart from this use, which is impacting me the most, there are many other items transfered using BitTorrent which are just as legal and useful to your paid subscribers.

    I ask you to reconcider your blocking of this traffic, else I would like to be released from my contract to you with no penalty as you are no longer providing the service which I initially signed up for.

    Sincerly,

    Yournamehere!
    --------------

    Something along those lines anyway... (spell checked of course)... and I would lay off the legal crap... nothing will turn off a tech support or customer support officer more than some little kid (whether you are or not, that's what they'll see you as, trust me... I have run an internet provider's customer support centre) claiming that they know something about the law when really they don't... it just makes them instantly go "We've got another RIAA nut here...." "Really? Send them the pre-canned response".

    Threatening to end your contract with them and demanding to be released without penalty will get you far more action than vague mentionings of cans of worms and lawsuits.

  36. But... by ari_j · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can't trust a guy who writes Pascal-style comments to write a good letter to a corporation. (* Or can you? *)

    ;-)

  37. Re:Bittorrent for the win... kinda by Slashcrap · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Try switching to port 1720, the standard VoIP port. It works with Rogers Cable in Canada. They don't run packet shapers on any traffic on that port, for fear of lagging VoIP calls.

    Of course, all that bulk data transfer is going to ruin the latency for anyone trying to make a VoIP call in a way that even traffic shaping can't.

    But there's no need to worry as long as you're getting your mp3 fix, right?

    Although I've no doubt that you've selflessly restricted your BT client's upload to 1kb/sec to reduce the impact.

  38. offtopic by Penguinoflight · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have mod points, but how about if you expand on your post so it doesn't get modded to -1 overrated/offtopic. iTunes infringes on fair use rights. Get that through your thick skull. How can you turn up your nose on "illegal" p2pers while using your iTunes and rendering copywrite law useless by total lack of legitimacy? Where there is not legitimacy there is anarchy, which builds new legitimate laws. Your comment which caves to legal/social pressures is not only offtopic, it is bad for society, and reflects a personality driven by fear, not innovation. I pity you.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14