Slashdot Mirror


BitTorrent Use Up 24% Since November

dingalig writes "It looks as though the MPAA's fight against The Pirate Bay and other BitTorrent sites isn't going very well. Ars Technica reports that BitTorrent traffic is up by 24% since before the holidays. 'BitTorrent traffic spiked over the December holidays. After a peaking at almost 12.5 million downloaders on the 200 most popular files, traffic dropped at the beginning of January — about the time that school started up again. But one figure that will prove alarming to the content creation industry is that the numbers are higher now than they used to be. "The baseline has been elevated," notes [BigChampagne CEO Eric] Garland. "Not only did the spike happen, but the bar was raised."'"

239 comments

  1. WGA Strike? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like people started downloading more films when the TV shows started running out.

    I'm guessing this has more to do with the fact that when there's nothing on TV to watch, people are more likely to download a film.

    MPAA should sue the WGA

    1. Re:WGA Strike? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 5, Funny

      I only download for the articles...

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    2. Re:WGA Strike? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MPAA should sue the WGA I'd sure like to get rid of that nasty... oh, the other WGA
    3. Re:WGA Strike? by Digestromath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes... 700mb .avi articles about "Teenage Lesbians" and thier "Raunchy Shenanigans Vol.11." Must be a fantastic read judging from the abstract.

    4. Re:WGA Strike? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no more slashdot effect, the more people want the site, the faster it downloads via bittorrent.

      Also did you notice. the pages are much richer on bittorrent than on regular web. They got sound, moving pictures and what not... I miss the comments though.

    5. Re:WGA Strike? by icsx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm guessing this has more to do with the fact that when there's nothing on TV to watch, people are more likely to download a film. Or Maybe they downloaded those TV-shows instead from TV? They air mainly on US only so rest of the world gets to wait from 6 months to 2 years usually until they see the same episodes, unless, of course they use bittorrent.

    6. Re:WGA Strike? by mutube · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes... 700mb .avi articles about "Teenage Lesbians" and thier "Raunchy Shenanigans Vol.11." Must be a fantastic read judging from the abstract.

      Link please.
    7. Re:WGA Strike? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link please.
      Did you RTFA!?
    8. Re:WGA Strike? by shoptroll · · Score: 1

      WGA + Faltering economy maybe? If people can't afford groceries and gas, how can the MPAA expect them to afford a $10+ movie ticket?

      --
      Insert Sig Here
    9. Re:WGA Strike? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "If people can't afford groceries and gas, how can the MPAA expect them to afford a $10+ movie ticket?"

      Wow...where do you live where movies are so expensive??? I don't think I've ever seen a ticket to a movie $10 or more....

      What is the matinée price where you live? I guess that high amount you speak of is night time showings?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:WGA Strike? by shoptroll · · Score: 1

      $10.50 for an adult at the Lowe's in Boston Commons.

      I forget what the matinee price is but I can't imagine it to be less than $6 or $7 at best.

      --
      Insert Sig Here
    11. Re:WGA Strike? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Most of us work 9-5. A matinée isn't really much of an option, so we're stuck with $9-$15 tickets. And I'll personally only pay the $15 for an Imax showing. Either that or my ticket better come with a beer.

    12. Re:WGA Strike? by old+and+new+again · · Score: 0

      where do YOU live, movie ticket is 12,50 when its cheap and 17 in teh evening here in canada

  2. Mainstream now... by ArIck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With all the publicity TPB et al has gotten with those ridiculous actions of MPAA, BitTorrent is now a mainstream. The same thing happened with Napster and the same thing would happen with private torrent sites when MPAA starts attacking them.

    1. Re:Mainstream now... by Chief+Wongoller · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, bittorrent is not yet a mainstream, but it will be. An average of 8.2 million downloaders at any one time may seem a lot until you consider that there are nearly 350 million broadband subscribers worldwide (wikkepedia). So only 2.4 percent are downloading at any one time. This percentage can only grow and surely will grow considerably, not because people want stuff for free (but that is nice), but because only bittorent can truly let us watch what we want when we want. Who wants to go back to old tv, that dictates to you when you watch, when watching bittorent files is so more flexible? Not me. I'm really suprised that more people don't use it, but I know as soon as people try it, theyr'e hooked and there's no going back. The tide will be unstoppable and those folk blind to its inevitability are just a bunch of Canutes.

    2. Re:Mainstream now... by ArIck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BitTorrent is as mainstream as YouTube is. With 100 million views a day at YouTube (wikipedia), it averages to less than 8.2 million at any one time making BT more popular than YouTube.

      And yes I agree with you.... BT could only go up

    3. Re:Mainstream now... by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you're saying that this could be the year of BitTorrent on the desktop?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Mainstream now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny because it's true and ironic. holy fuck there's soda on my keyboard i laughed so suddenly and hard.

    5. Re:Mainstream now... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Youtube is just a bunch of crap now. If their execs were smart then they would make deals with the content providers instead of bending over backwards in the face of every takedown notice. They could improve video quality and have a free section and a pay section. They could offer bulk or single-watch streaming packages or bill based on monthly bandwidth. People are willing to pay for a decent, easily accesable solution('Torrent rocks but it's usually far from convenient). People would pay a little extra to not have to have 20 different accounts with 20 different providers. Until somebody comes up with a feasible multimedia streaming or download solution, I'll be firing up the 'Torrent.

    6. Re:Mainstream now... by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      They could improve video quality and have a free section and a pay section

      This typically evolves into a "pay only" section, where the focus gets drawn away from the "free" zone as it's not paying off, they'll try to milk more money from the user.

      Youtube is just a bunch of crap now.

      I thought the concept behind "youtube" was that the user is the content uploader. Hence it getting as polluted. However there are gems of movies and clips on youtube (in my case, I find some documentaries and lectures well worth watching). I agree the whole "community" and "viral (*me too*) public video communication" is crap. I don't like it either; so I don't spend time watching. The search in YouTube is intelligent enough to not offer me to watch this "crap" if I'm not searching for it.

      If you mean the quality of the videos are "crappy", then it basically depends on the quality of the users' equipment. YouTube would be working at a HD content delivery.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    7. Re:Mainstream now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem with youtube now though is people re-uploading mixes of videos with the original title and description. I used to use it for things like robot chicken and what not. But I can't be bothered since they're all remixes now.

      Maybe that's their intent, but like heck I'd rush out to buy a box set just to see some action figuramation.

    8. Re:Mainstream now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not until Netcraft confirms it.

    9. Re:Mainstream now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      convenient?

      1 click. gets you to the torrent site.
      1 search gets you the torrent you wanted 90% of the time.
      1 click starts your download.
      wait 15 minutes for an hour long show.
      1 click plays the file.

      Oh yeah thats SO hard and inconvenient. Oh wait. no. its so easy an aol user could do it.

    10. Re:Mainstream now... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      You're assuming the content providers even want to make a deal with Youtube. If the content providers really wanted their stuff on Youtube so that people could easily view it, they would have approached Youtube with the idea, instead of just sending out thousands of takedown notices. Instead, they insist on sticking with their dieing business model, of selling their shows to broadcast TV stations.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    11. Re:Mainstream now... by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that BT can only go up, but downloading using Bit Torrent is generally a passive action while watching Youtube is comparably more active. With BT, you find the torrent you want and start it off - minutes to hours to days later it is done. Youtube, however, is generally an active action on your part. Most Youtube videos are short so if you're on their site for say half an hour, you're doing a whole lot more compared to what you're doing with Bit Torrent.

    12. Re:Mainstream now... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can see why you're posting as anonymous. Obviously you've never waited a week for that one person who has that one piece you need to finally get online. Maybe it's fast for you because you like the crap that's popular at the moment, like American Idol or America's top *.

    13. Re:Mainstream now... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Youtube is just a bunch of crap now.

      Now?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:Mainstream now... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Solution, use torrent sites that enforce ratios. If people have to share back, or lose access to the site, torrents become much better seeded.

      Of course, this requires you to not be a leech. Is that not convenient?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:Mainstream now... by old+and+new+again · · Score: 0

      thanks to CBC, bit torrent WILL be main stream finally, after years of waiting, real big networks start to grasp the concept and seed their own shows with their own burned in ad's , really, they are that stupid, letting people rip the show, strip the ads and distribute it when THEY could be providing a hi quality file with some burned ins ads of theirs, generating revenues that otherwise will not exist in their old fashionned, stupid traditional model but no they prefer to sue people and talk shit instead of going with the times, all of them beside CBC are still in the stone age of traditional medias hell, i trashed my tv in 2005 and never looked back, i will NEVER again watch a show with disturbing ads in it nor will I wait till they decide to show it to see it, i watch my tv uninterupted, at the time that pleases me and they hould really think about it (and I know there is voD, but mostly it's crap reality shows and they charge me for it+they put ads, grrrr, if I pay, shove your ads in your butt)

    16. Re:Mainstream now... by old+and+new+again · · Score: 0

      no, we happen to use good torrent sites, not crappy public trackers I have never waited for anything besides the crap from TPB, demonoid or mininova, all real sites don't have those issues @miro miro sucks ass, lacks 90% of proper bit torrent clients and 90% of a good video player/organizer, really no use for a cumbersom epiece of shit like this

    17. Re:Mainstream now... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Youtube is just a bunch of crap now. crap is a highly relative term.
      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    18. Re:Mainstream now... by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1

      Actually, bittorrent is not yet a mainstream, but it will be. An average of 8.2 million downloaders at any one time may seem a lot until you consider that there are nearly 350 million broadband subscribers worldwide (wikkepedia). So only 2.4 percent are downloading at any one time.

      I get nearly all movies I watch via BitTorrent. At any one time, the probability that my client is running and downloading something is maybe 1/5, no more... consider that once you get for example the BBC Horizon Collection (takes a couple days to download on a good connection), you are pretty much occupied for a few months. Thhe ratio is still on the same side for most movies: the interval between watching them is much bigger than the time it takes to download. And, I mean, this is true for hi-def stuff. Looking at the popularity stats for differently sized torrents, I can conclude that the overwhelming majority of users are downloading (over)compressed movies under 2 MB in size. It takes a couple hours to get one, and how often you watch movies?

      Bottom line: multiply the reported number of users by 10.

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
    19. Re:Mainstream now... by CoreDump01 · · Score: 1

      Youtube is just a bunch of crap now.

      Now? Well, it was rather decent when you could still find full episodes of popular series on it. Beat reading the newspaper during lunch break at any case.
    20. Re:Mainstream now... by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean 2GB/movie? Either that or I've missed the discovery of a really good video compression algorithm?

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    21. Re:Mainstream now... by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean 2GB/movie?

      Yes, I stand corrected. I never download overcompressed movies, so 2 MB or 2 GB there doesn't make a big difference for me :)

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
  3. Gotta love statistics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder just how closely they selected the data on this study. More and more Linux distros are being torrented as are larger open source apps like OpenOffice. In fact, you can't get a LiveDVD outside of the torrent world right now...and rightly so. It's just more efficient that way. Let's also not forget all the companies out there like Blizzard that roll out software via torrenting. That leads me to wonder if they are just looking at BitTorrent traffic or ALL P2P combined.

    Statistics can be manipulated to prove a point...87% of all people know that.

    1. Re:Gotta love statistics. by FoolsGold · · Score: 4, Informative

      If they're counting all torrents, then yes the content/patches of WoW would certainly count for a fair bit.

      But you'd have to be rather naive to think Linux distros and other legal content (not including WoW) are in any way a measurable part of the total torrent traffic. I have no stats of course (this is Slashdot), except to say that whenever you look at the top listings of torrents being hosted on say TPB, I can see TV shows, Movies, Games and Music. No Linux.

    2. Re:Gotta love statistics. by jd · · Score: 1

      You're right, but I'm guessing the original poster's idea is that if the author of the statistics doesn't say how they are calculating the numbers, we don't know what the numbers actually say or how we should adjust them to adjust for non-BitTorrent traffic, legitimate traffic and undetected traffic. Probably the adjustments are going to be small, but there's no obvious way to prove that or even to set upper and lower bounds.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Gotta love statistics. by richie2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That could simply be because Linux distros don't need to use TPB since they have their own trackers.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    4. Re:Gotta love statistics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "except to say that whenever you look at the top listings of torrents being hosted on say TPB, I can see TV shows, Movies, Games and Music. No Linux."

      We have our own trackers dumbass so of course it's not going to put a dent in the listings of TPB. While I wouldn't for the life of me pretend that Linux would be in the top 10 torrents it still is a big part of bittorrent use. Most linux users I know get their new distribution that way.

    5. Re:Gotta love statistics. by FoolsGold · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, so Linux distros are most commonly obtained through torrents. I happen to agree with that.

      But Linux users are so incredibly insignificant to the OVERALL amount of torrent traffic, that this fact has no relevance.

      Dumbass? I think you're more of a dumbfuck here mate.

    6. Re:Gotta love statistics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      When Ubuntu Hardy Heron is released, please check the torrent tracker statistics and record the overall transferred data (in GB) vs time (say every 5 minutes).

      I did this for Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon and was seeing somewhere in the vicinity of 8gbps of bandwidth being used by the Ubuntu torrents for a while after the release. Talking to a member of the official release engineering team at Ubuntu, I was informed that HTTP/FTP mirrors were taking loads in excess of 5gbps as well.

      Remember that these are only ISO images (good for new installations) and don't count the amount of bandwidth used for upgrading existing systems. And remember all the other Linux distributions as well.

    7. Re:Gotta love statistics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I believe in a fact you just were disputing, but I have no proof, therefore I will call you a dumbfuck."

    8. Re:Gotta love statistics. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Add up the numbers for the top 500 illegal torrents on Pirate Bay and all the other torrent sites and I bet you'll get a much bigger total bandwidth than this. Popular TV shows and movies can have tens or even hundreds of thousands of downloaders. And that is happening 24/7, not just on a release.

      Please, it's ridiculous to claim that the majority of torrent bandwidth is used for legal content. And it's pointless too. No one from the MPAA/RIAA is going to come one here and stop harassing pirates just because some people use the same protocol to download Linux. They don't care about that, what they do is to leach on the illegal torrents they do care about and then try to get the ISPs to tell them who was using the IP addresses they saw downloading.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    9. Re:Gotta love statistics. by pipatron · · Score: 1

      whenever you look at the top listings of torrents being hosted on say TPB

      Ok, now let's take another popular tracker, say, ubuntu.com... Hm.. 100% linux distributions!

      Of course you only get pirated material on The Pirate Bay! If you have content that's non-controversial, you put it up yourself.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    10. Re:Gotta love statistics. by elh_inny · · Score: 1

      Well, morals aside, many Power Users, FXPers and People of the Scene (TM) are using using up massive amounts of traffic without actually ever watching the content that flows through their servers, so the amount of traffic can not be tied to increase in piracy and certainly not to increased losses.
      It might only mean that some people are getting what they want faster and in higher quality.
      x264 releases - 4.5GB, ale slowly replacing the xVid releases, which were 700MB, hence the growth in traffic.

      Remember kids: Data must flow (TM).

    11. Re:Gotta love statistics. by FoamingToad · · Score: 1

      >> whenever you look at the top listings of torrents being hosted on say TPB, I can see TV shows, Movies, Games and Music. No Linux.

      ... but this has the inherent assumption that torrent files for Linux would be hosted on TPB - which isn't necessarily the case.

      Certainly if I wanted a linux distribution I'd be more inclined to visit the site of the distributor (e.g. the OpenSuse site) rather than trust to the beneficience of TPB...

    12. Re:Gotta love statistics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the same time if you look at btjunkie.org two biggest torrents are Linux distros. Depends where you look and how. Anyway, as I remember Linux was always top on btjunkie.

    13. Re:Gotta love statistics. by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      I don't like the idea of all the bandwidth the Ubuntu guys have to pay for to keep us up to date patching every program every week. I was thinking they should integrate Bittorrent with the updater. There are lots of packages and who needs what changes all the time, but for the people that always update when they get the notification it would save them a lot of bandwidth.

    14. Re:Gotta love statistics. by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      DebTorrent is at work on precisely this.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    15. Re:Gotta love statistics. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "OK, so Linux distros are most commonly obtained through torrents. I happen to agree with that.'

      REally?

      Interesting....I've always just downloaded my distros from the ftp site...never thought to try BT for linux. I've played with it a little for TV shows and things that are hard to find out there (the odd Zeppelin bootleg)...but, I've only done those since it was sometimes hard to find them easily elsewhere...I've started doing tv with nzb files for current stuff. But honestly, I've never found BT to be particularly fast and that bothered me...I figured it was due to most people on it being on really slow connections, whereas USENET I hook to servers that have the same speedy connection I do.

      I'd not thought of using BT for distros and the like due to my perceived slowness....but, it has been like 3-4 years since I last played with it, maybe I'll try again. The Miro thing I read about earlier sounds interesting, so I may try it soon

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  4. Victimless by Repton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We need to highlight that [copyright infringement] is not a victimless crime and take appropriate actions."

    Anyone know any victims? Artists or creators whose works are widely pirated but who struggle to make a living?

    --
    Repton.
    They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    1. Re:Victimless by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Lately I've been downloading Gilligan's Island.

      Only people I'm ripping off are those Time-Warner-Life scumbags who will only sell me the DVDs if I sign up to a "book of the month" style subscription..

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Victimless by mollymoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You seem to be implying that depriving someone of something doesn't make them a victim as long as it doesn't leave them struggling to survive. Which is of course complete and utter bullshit.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    3. Re:Victimless by Slashdotgirl · · Score: 1
      Yes, Me, because of all your pirating I'm now destitute, living under a park bench and feeding from the local trash cans. You scumbags, you wait until I catch you.

      Regards

      Slashdotgirl

      --
      The more I know, the less I know
    4. Re:Victimless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when do people need to be "struggling to make a living" to be considered a victim?

    5. Re:Victimless by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      I doh know. I disagree. Taxes deprive me of cash. I don't really consider myself a victim to the tax man though.. even though I am paying three taxes (/me grumbles)

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    6. Re:Victimless by vally_manea · · Score: 1

      Well, I think it depends... mostly when those sued are struggling to survive. I don't really think that the issue is so black and white as you put it.

    7. Re:Victimless by MikeFM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's like victimizing royalty by taking away land they aren't using so that commoners can hunt for food. Sure then they might not have quite so much bounty going to waste but then who cares? I'm not going to spend my time, energy, and money defending them.

      Being civilized means respecting the rights of others to life and liberty - it doesn't mean giving others the right to be rich. I have no problem with people being rich but I feel no need to defend their wealth. I don't believe that being rich makes them more productive so from my point of view it's better if they have to continue struggling for their wealth by doing useful things like producing more music, movies, and other cultural resources. Sitting on their ass enjoying their wealth isn't really a boon for humanity although most of us wouldn't mind being able to do so.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    8. Re:Victimless by Eevee1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That is so sad. I'll download the movie when it comes out.

    9. Re:Victimless by Plutonite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or maybe he's implying, correctly, that sharing digital information for free does not deprive anyone of anything, let alone make them penniless.

    10. Re:Victimless by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      And who is deprived of what exactly when identical copies of digital media can be made? If I have a thing, and you make an identical copy of the thing that I have, that doesn't make me a victim.

    11. Re:Victimless by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well the point is more "right now this is illegal but this is sustainable for everyone so why not change the law ?"

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    12. Re:Victimless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean starving MPAA executives?

    13. Re:Victimless by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sharing is moral if you own something. Sharing some you don't own and who's owner doesn't want it shared because they want to charge people for using it is not moral.

      How would you feel if technology made it possible for people to share for free something you used to sell to them individually?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    14. Re:Victimless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that files are being *copied* rather than *moved*, nobody is being deprived of anything: the original producers still have the series, just like before.

      Yeah, maybe they'll make one sale less (or maybe not). But is there a dog-given right to be able to profit from things forever? No, and copyright was never about that: it was about furthering culture by providing incentives to create things that would ultimately pass into the public domain.

      Downloading stuff made by rich corporations (or, for that matter, individuals) may well be illegal (depending on where you live), but it is not immoral, sorry.

    15. Re:Victimless by evanbd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ideas are owned by society. They are what make up our culture. Sometimes we, as a society, have seen fit to let their creator exercise some limited degree of control over them. That does not mean any one person can own an idea any more than they can own a sunset.

    16. Re:Victimless by evanbd · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you wholeheartedly, the claim that people are sharing with a few thousand of their closest friends on the internet rings a bit hollow.

    17. Re:Victimless by Schiphol · · Score: 1

      Your answer implies that: It is true that depriving someone of something makes them a victim even if it doesn't leave them struggling to survive, only if we accept premise "sharing is immoral" as true. I can't see the relation between consequent and antecedent there.

    18. Re:Victimless by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's very poetic. But what if you were someone who lived by selling your ideas?

      I'm not - I sell services to people. But I'd like to be someone who sells software. And people that make songs or software or movies do it partly because they want to make money out of it. So if you start taking their stuff and not paying them and you break the law whilst doing so, you shouldn't be too surprised if they sic their lawyers on you.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    19. Re:Victimless by Icarium · · Score: 1

      If there was a way for me to legally watch my favourite TV shows within a reasonable time of the episodes first airing I wouldn't have a use for BitTorrent at all. As it is, I'm not willing to wait the 6 months (or never) it takes the local broadcaster(s) to pick up a TV show (And since I'm still paying my TV licence and satelite TV subscription anyway, I'm not seeing the victim here. Unless you count the advertisements that I ignore anyway).

      I prefer my books is paper format, my software as originals and my movies on the big screen with friends. Pardon me if I'm not losing any sleep at night.

    20. Re:Victimless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You can stay at my place Slashdotgirl, maybe I'll even feed you. But wait, are you the one "stealing" my wireless from under that bench? You scumbag, I hope they catch you.

    21. Re:Victimless by MttJocy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seams to me that copyright was and is doomed to failure on the simple grounds of human nature, human culture exists exactly because humans enjoy sharing ideas, creativity influences etc that have meaning to them with others this is how influences get spread within a culture and become identifiable attributes of that culture without that aspect of human nature culture and society itself would completely fail to function properly neither can happen if influences and ideas are not shared between the members of that society.

      It is only natural that people were and still do have a natural desire to share those influences that have an impact on them with those around them, it is natural to want those in your social circle to be able to share in those experiences that feel significant and/or influential to yourself so thus any creative work which has the ability to influence people in any meaningful way are also going to become things that people want to share socially with others.

      Failing to understand this is what is causing content providers to alienate society itself, trying to stop a society sharing cultural influences generally tends to anger that society for many people trying to tell them they cannot share a good meaningful book with those they are close to is much like trying to tell people they can't share any idea that they find meaningful (ie it is like trying to block freedom of speech and expression, which people are strongly against). The content providers are attacking an aspect of human nature and culture which has grown and been ingrained into the consciousness of every human society for thousands of years and they suddenly expect that they are going to fight such a deep human behavior?

      Interestingly however they do seam to realize this about something like sharing a book with a friend but not where it concerns a movie or a song, the internet etc, the problem is it is part of the same human desire to share cultural influences with others which creates the former, anyone that does not understand the human desire even need to share cultural influences with others is doomed to fail, thousands of years of precedent are against you and history of that magnitude is near impossible to defeat no matter how much you scream shout and kick your feet about it.

    22. Re:Victimless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a published author with some of my works on BitTorrent sites. I was actually more amused than anything. In fact, I've even used BitTorrent to download some for reference when I didn't have a physical copy on hand at a conference.

      Then again, I enjoy writing. I'm not in it to make a living; I just enjoy sharing information. So, it doesn't bug me in the least when it's copied. My publisher has a different standpoint, though.

    23. Re:Victimless by Marcus+Green · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why the analogy with Royalty. Why do you think that this only affects rich people. Do you think that only rich people create content? There are millions of people who only make a modest income from creative content that are affected by copyright laws and their enforcement. The emphasis on rich people smacks of resentment.

    24. Re:Victimless by Hucko · · Score: 1

      If I am making a reasonable living, then *shrug*. If I catch them red-handed, i'd apply the five points of the law... but I'm not doing too badly, so I wouldn't bust me gut over it.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    25. Re:Victimless by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 1

      I don't agree. This has been said before, but it needs to be repeated, and perhaps projected onto the surface of the moon in big red letters. The problem is that the authorities and producers are just dumb and can't accept that technology has changed. The internet is in some respects simply a giant TiVO. That's all. It's simply a public or semi public co-operative mass storage device with multiple backups.

      TV companies can either adapt or die, and there are plenty of ways they can adapt. These are people who write and produce shows about the future of humanity, so they should be able to think of something. Get the Star Trek writers on it, if no-one else.

      This whole debate strikes me as similar to the historical accounts of the authorities trying to ban printing presses or keep them out of the hands of the "wrong" people. Sure, that seems immoral and pointless to us now, but it seemed reasonable to many people at the time (people haven't always believed in free expression). A hundred years from now people may well look back at the MPAA and our current clowns in charge with similar amazement and disgust.

      Capitalists seem to be all for change making industries obsolete, until it is their industry, at which point they howl for welfare payments. They seem to forget that going into business is taking a risk, and one of the risks is that some invention may make your whole business model pointless.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    26. Re:Victimless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ideas are owned by society.

      If everyone feels that way, why aren't copyright protection and patent laws abolished? The truth is that you are being presumptuous; your idea is a minority viewpoint. That doesn't mean it's an immoral point of view, but you shouldn't presume to have the authority to dictate what "we, as a society" think.

      If your theory of "nobody owns an idea" is indeed ubiquitous, why has it never been codified, while the opposing viewpoint (that inventions and creative works can be "owned", with some restrictions, through copyright and patent law) has been embedded in law?
    27. Re:Victimless by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      those Time-Warner-Life scumbags who will only sell me the DVDs if I sign up to a "book of the month" style subscription..


      Huh? Last time I was in a Barnes & Noble, they had Gilligan's Island boxed sets. Seasons one and two, right there...
    28. Re:Victimless by Hucko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd love to be able to make money off software too, but for the fact it just seems wrong to charge for something that is infinitely reproducible. For my service and effort, sure. But that decreases on average for every copy made. Give me the ability to transfer >$1AUD with no fees, I'll pay for every song I would then download, 8$ per movie. Few, if any, media files are worth more in the current environment. What, your going to sulk and 'not create'? I'll live.

      Its like garbage, if there are plenty of bins around more people put the rubbish in the bin. My 3km street has no bin, there is mounds of rubbish lying around. Moral of the story; make it convenient and inexpensive, and most people will be reasonable.

      OTH, technically it isn't moral to copy someone else's work with no benefit to them. Thus, I don't 'pirate'.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    29. Re:Victimless by CastrTroy · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Looks like it's pretty easy to get Gilligan's Island on DVD.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    30. Re:Victimless by jamesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there was a way for me to legally watch my favourite TV shows within a reasonable time of the episodes first airing I wouldn't have a use for BitTorrent at all.

      I'm guessing here that you are probably my age (32) or younger. I'm at the older end of the generation that, for some reason, seems to want everything right now. A new series comes out and we have to have it right now, not when our local TV broadcaster gets around to showing it. Even though there is plenty of stuff to do in the meantime, and the show will be just as good in 6 months time as it is now, we still have to have it now.

      Never, of course, is a different matter altogether... that's what DVD's are for :)
    31. Re:Victimless by famebait · · Score: 1

      I know people who used to run indie labels with
      essentially no profit but at least without
      sinking cash steadily into it, but have conceded
      that this is no longer possible these days.
      Does that count?

      Piracy being the cause is of course not provable,
      but pretty likely.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    32. Re:Victimless by Kopiok · · Score: 1

      Sometimes we, as a society, have seen fit to let their creator exercise some limited degree of control over them. You seem to have missed that part of his post.
    33. Re:Victimless by kestasjk · · Score: 1
      Pretty impressive argument once you have replaced "Film" with "Idea"..

      Films are owned by society. They are what make up our culture. Sometimes we, as a society, have seen fit to let their creator exercise some limited degree of control over them. That does not mean any one person can own a film any more than they can own a sunset. This is where I'd usually start talking about what "ownership" means with respect to films and ideas, the incentive to create media, maybe an analogy of patenting ideas to copyrighting digital media.. But I know people just want to hear any sort of justification for their piracy, no matter how weak, so there's not much point.
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    34. Re:Victimless by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Isn't there a difference between sharing idea's, and sharing millions of lines of source code that it took thousands of man-hours to type out, test, fix, test, fix, and market? I mean, sharing ideas is fine. But you can't just pretend that the software just came into being because somebody had an idea. I have lots of ideas for good software. The actual implementation is the hard work that people should be rewarded for. Even most of the open source projects have donation bins and appreciate getting actual cash for their hard work.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    35. Re:Victimless by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Being civilized means respecting the rights of others to life and liberty [, and respecting their property]
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    36. Re:Victimless by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Again the "poor musician's" argument.

      80% (or more) of sales of CD's goes to the publisher, only that minority part goes to the author himself. The percentage cut the artist gets is something they have to work out with the publisher. Usually at the start they get a low percentage and later on they can negotiate a large one.

      But the publisher should get something. In fact for most mainstream stuff, I think the concept of an artist is pretty questionable. Most of this stuff is actually created more by the publisher's marketing department than anyone else. They could find loads of people to be the singer. Essentially the artist is commoditized and that reduces their bargaining power. Once they become famous of course, they can decommoditize themselves and charge more.

      But early on what about the people that work for the publisher? If they're really the creative force behind it, I think they should be allowed to control who gets a copy of their work. A copyright it you will. As it happens the people that wrote the US Constitution agreed with me

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

      Since you're an FSF member, you should also note that copyright, the thing that allows the MPAA to stop people using their IP without paying for it is also the thing which stops evil proprietary software companies taking GPL code and using it in a closed source system.

      But if we're morally allowed to ignore copyright if the artists are not being paid much, I suppose I'm free to take GPL code and proprietarize it, right? After all the authors don't get paid much, most of the money from selling Linux stays with Red Hat, IBM and the like.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    37. Re:Victimless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allow me to introduce you to the full stop.

    38. Re:Victimless by kharchenko · · Score: 1

      As far as I am concerned, copyright (at least as practiced in US) is not limited. There are songs/writings/movies that have been created before I was born and will remain in the proprietary hands well after I die. And it's not some "limited" restriction - not only I am not allowed to copy them outright, I can't create based on these works (e.g. infringing on a copyrighted character), I can't even sing something like "Happy Birthday" in a public setting. So from my point of view it seems that the control is nearly absolute in terms of both time and restrictions.

      As broken as the patent system is, it pales in comparison with the copyrights, which are assigned regardless of merit and for much longer terms.

      I am for giving due credit (and money) to people creating the content, but as long as others can get on my case for singing a song I knew as a kid, or playing radio in a public setting, or drawing a cartoon mouse, don't preach to me about the starving artists. They are too removed from my actions in each case - either by time or by corporate middle-men.

    39. Re:Victimless by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Isn't it worse to deprive your friend of something you have, than deprive multinational companies of money they are ripping off authors and are based on twisted laws of copyrights and patents anyway?
      Let's face it, your friends probably aren't deprived of entertainment. Even if they are, there are plenty of lawful avenues to get cheap or free entertainment without resorting to piracy.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    40. Re:Victimless by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      You've complete carefully avoided my point which is this -

      * Copyright holders for music and movies are trying to stop piracy.
      * You claim that people should be allowed to share against their wishes and in anycase that it doesn't hurt them because they don't get a very good cut.
      * You are a member of an organisation which depends on copyright to make software communally owned (don't bother to nitpick this, I'm not interested). This is enforced by copyright.

      My question is simple. Since sharing is moral and authors of GPL code don't get much of a cut, is it OK if I take GPL code and use it as I see fit?

      If yes, then you have to admit your arguments are bogus since they only apply to people you don't like, not to people you do. If no, then don't the copyright holders have the same right to object (and sue) as the FSF does when people us their stuff in a way they don't support?

      Maybe the FSF should form an anti copyright infringement alliance with the MPAA and RIAA in fact. They all seem to be organisations that gain their power from holding the copyright on other people's work.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    41. Re:Victimless by evanbd · · Score: 1

      No, the argument works fine with "film" in place as long as you read "Films are part of what make up our culture," etc. The incentive to create does not require ownership. It doesn't even require any real quantity of control (see Shakespeare), but I think it's pretty clear that a modest amount of control vastly increases the incentive. But I fail to see how the differential incentive to create a film from providing 100 years of control instead of 20 is enough to justify the loss to society.

    42. Re:Victimless by javajeff · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are more "starving artists" than surviving artists. Therefore, it is safe to assume that it is the general public that makes the surviving artists popular and adds the value to the music...using music as an example. There are millions of artists, that get no publicity like American Idol, no record contracts, no DJ payoffs, and other avenues to open up popularity that then creates the value of their music. With that logic, all music has no value, and it is the people that add the value.

    43. Re:Victimless by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      It's like victimizing royalty by taking away land they aren't using so that commoners can hunt for food.
      Yeah, except entertainment is a luxury, and one that the "commoners" are not at all starved of.

      I don't believe that being rich makes them more productive so from my point of view it's better if they have to continue struggling for their wealth by doing useful things like producing more music, movies, and other cultural resources.
      No, it's the promise of riches that makes people more productive. The system rewards hard work, or the footing of risks, with money. If you don't allow people to be entitled to their riches, you end up discouraging the extra work. In this case, allowing people to override copyright-holder's copyrights tells them that even though they do the extra work, they aren't entitled to the rewards of such work.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    44. Re:Victimless by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      No, it's just that pesky food and that pesky apartment rent (or house maintenance) that makes them penniless. Perhaps we should make them illegal instead of sharing.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    45. Re:Victimless by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Gee, what a coincidence. I do make my money by selling ideas. It just happens that I've found ways to do it that don't require me to indefinitely claim ownership of them. After all, that's what solving engineering and software problems on contract amounts to, right?

      As should be clear from my original post, I'm not against copyright in an appropriately limited form (ditto patents). I am, however, quite strongly against the idea that copyrightable works are in any way "ownable" by an individual. The copyright is owned by the author, and grants some monopoly privileges; the work is owned by society once created. (Obviously a single copy of the work, as a physical object, is owned by its owner.)

    46. Re:Victimless by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      It deprives artists of potential sales. While some people use illegal downloads as "tasters" and do actually buy music, there are plenty who have never paid for a CD or DVD in their lives. If they couldn't get it for free do you really think none of them would ever pay for any?

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    47. Re:Victimless by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      If nobody paid for content there would be far, far fewer people making it and nobody at all making big-budget movies and TV. That simply isn't sustainable.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    48. Re:Victimless by genner · · Score: 1

      Were you looking at my sunset again?
      I'll send you the bill.

    49. Re:Victimless by TheBig1 · · Score: 1

      TV companies can either adapt or die, and there are plenty of ways they can adapt.

      I see a very simple way - release open (meaning I can play them on Linux), high quality, non DRM'd content (TV shows, whatever) which include commercials. That is what supports most programming anyway - if you release it as a torrent, there is not even much overhead for them to pay for bandwidth, etc.

      I know the argument against this - that people will just remove the commercials and re-distribute. Well, I for one welcome^W (oops) would be perfectly willing to watch the official legal version including commercials, to support this official and legal method of distribution. The extra time wasted on commercials would be my payment for the 'free' content. If someone doesn't want to spend time on that, they are free to buy the DVD.

      I just don't see why more companies are not going to methods like this. Am I missing something obvious?

      Cheers

    50. Re:Victimless by evanbd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It has been codified. Look at the form of the copyright and patent laws -- they don't grant ownership of the idea at all. Look at the justification in the Constitution -- the premise is that copyright and patent require explicit permission from the constitution to exist at all, since they go *against* the natural way of doing things (ie ideas owned by society). Look at the writing of the founders discussing the matter, and you see the same concept -- patents and copyrights are limited term monopolies, granted because it is useful to do so, not because of any inherent right of ownership.

      The views I espouse form the very core of our copyright and patent systems; they have merely been forgotten by the public, while a very well-funded campaign attempts to dismantle them entirely. Perhaps it has succeeded, and we as a society have changed our minds -- but if that is the case, it needs to be expressed in very forceful terms -- specifically, a constitutional amendment permitting unlimited term copyright.

    51. Re:Victimless by photomonkey · · Score: 1

      I know an awful lot of photographers who frequently get fscked on copyright infringement (including me).

      I could care less if someone grabs one of my photos to use as their wallpaper or throw on their MySpace page, email to their friend, etc.

      What pisses me off to no end is that publications will try to sneak in additional uses of my work, OR that companies will grab photos and appropriate them for use in ads in print, or more likely on their site.

      So yes, there are plenty of creative professionals out there who aren't rich rockstars with expensive drug habits, and who have basically no prospect of ever becoming rich in the standard American sense of the word, and who need a solid method of protecting their interests.

      It's not that I think I should make money off work I did once for ever and ever and ever. It's that for as long as a photo is worth something to you (in a sense of using it to advance your business and/or product), it's worth something to me.

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
    52. Re:Victimless by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Sharing is moral if you own something. Sharing some you don't own and who's owner doesn't want it shared because they want to charge people for using it is not moral.

      No one owns television shows. The media corporations have copyrights to them. The concept of property is simply not applicable here. Consequently, the "something" doesn't have an owner, and sharing it is thus moral.

      How would you feel if technology made it possible for people to share for free something you used to sell to them individually?

      Are you suggesting we need to pay people because they feel bad if we don't ? Or are you trying to say that people who install solar panels on their roofs need to keep paying their former power company despite not needing it anymore ? How about, if I move back to my hometown, do I owe the phone company money because I can now talk to my friends face-to-face rather than use the phone - you know, share a communication channel for free instead of paying a fee for one ?

      But the real scumbag is the guy who digs a well in his backyard, especially if he gives water to his neighbors for free; he should be hanged for depriving the water company of profit !

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    53. Re:Victimless by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Gee, what a coincidence. I do make my money by selling ideas. It just happens that I've found ways to do it that don't require me to indefinitely claim ownership of them. After all, that's what solving engineering and software problems on contract amounts to, right? No, you're selling a service like me. I'm talking about people that write something and then build a business out of licensing it.

      As should be clear from my original post, I'm not against copyright in an appropriately limited form (ditto patents). I am, however, quite strongly against the idea that copyrightable works are in any way "ownable" by an individual. The copyright is owned by the author, and grants some monopoly privileges; the work is owned by society once created. (Obviously a single copy of the work, as a physical object, is owned by its owner.) I don't really know what if anything this is supposed to mean. Copyright as its name suggests is the right to say who has the right to copy. I don't really know whether that is ownership or not. I think it has many of the characteristics of ownership in that it can be sold or transferred to someone else. It's certainly very different from something being "owned by society", which would be public domain. Actually of course something owned by "society" would effectively be owned by whoever was rich enough to make physical copies. In the case of music or books, the publisher would make as many copies as they could, sell them and give the author nothing back. And that publisher would be in some low wage country too. Then again people in rich countries could just download. But the publishers would obviously stop releasing stuff in rippable formats. Who knows, but anyway it's sort of funny that one of the justifications of pirates is that copyright needs to be abolished because the poor artists get ripped off by the evil record companies.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    54. Re:Victimless by ultranova · · Score: 1

      That's very poetic. But what if you were someone who lived by selling your ideas?

      Well, if people aren't willing to pay for your current job, you need to find another one. Why should being in the "creating" business make you immune to the threat of outsourcing/obsolescence the rest of us face ?

      That's 1 euro, please.

      For the record, I draw as a hobby, and sometimes upload my drawings into various web forums. If I ever found copies of my works floating around the InterWebs, I would consider myself a Real Artist. And if they ended up in a popular torrent site with hundreds of leechers, I would print the page and arhive it, just in case I ever looked for a job where it might be useful in my CV.

      Losers complain that their stuff ends up being copied by thousands; winners point at it and say: "Look! My content is popular! Let's talk about publishing and advertizing deals."

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    55. Re:Victimless by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      No one owns television shows. The media corporations have copyrights to them. The concept of property is simply not applicable here. Consequently, the "something" doesn't have an owner, and sharing it is thus moral. Someone owns the copyright.

      Are you suggesting we need to pay people because they feel bad if we don't ? Or are you trying to say that people who install solar panels on their roofs need to keep paying their former power company despite not needing it anymore ? No, because they don't use it anymore. But if you stopped paying but hotwired the meter to get power for free that would be wrong. It would also be a reasonable analogy for downloading a movie for free rather than paying to watch it, unlike yours.

      How about, if I move back to my hometown, do I owe the phone company money because I can now talk to my friends face-to-face rather than use the phone - you know, share a communication channel for free instead of paying a fee for one ? Umm, no because you don't use the service.

      But the real scumbag is the guy who digs a well in his backyard, especially if he gives water to his neighbors for free; he should be hanged for depriving the water company of profit Sigh. Let's stop the non analogous analogies and nitpicking over copyright owner vs owner. It's seriously pointless.

      TV shows have an copyright owner. The copyright owner wants you to pay them in some way to see the show. If you don't want to watch it, that's fine. But if you do watch it for free that's not fine.

      It's just like Linux. It is protected by copyright. If you want to use it there is a copyright license which forces you to keep forks open source. Not using it is fine. Using it and abiding by the terms of the license is fine. Using it and ignoring the terms of the license is not fine. And that's legally not fine in most countries, quite apart from the moral issues. In the US, Copyright is actually in the constitution. So don't expect it to go away soon.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    56. Re:Victimless by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Something can be owned by society, but have restrictions on it, like copyright. The copyright can be owned by an individual. I see no need to have the specific work itself be owned in order for copyright to function; in fact, that's how the law is written currently.

      Why do you need ownership of the idea, as opposed to a limited term copyright, in order to make money by writing software, music, or books? I also see no need for copyrights to be anywhere near as long as they currently are -- only a very, very tiny fraction of works are still profitable after that long, and that payoff has very little incentive value at the time the work is created.

      Why do you assume I'm trying to justify piracy? Nowhere in here have I said I'm against compensating authors for their work. I'm in favor of such compensation, but I'm also against both the current copyright system and the ownership of ideas that the original poster seems to be advocating.

    57. Re:Victimless by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      The people who abuse copyright are not the modest income types. The modest income types keep working just like the rest of us. Hell, a lot of the modest income types that do creative content LOVE that their stuff hits bittorrent sites, because it makes them more popular. They aren't the people that are causing the problems.

    58. Re:Victimless by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      And hereby we enter into the usual debate of whether hypothetical consumer activity of someone forced to pay money for something, can warrant the very real (non hypothetical) deprivation of basic freedoms from someone else. I'm sorry, but "potential" sales that only occur because of a law are a sign of a failed model and a backward society. We can go on now and start arguing about car analogies, and the relationship of digital information to tangible goods, and how once I've bought something I can do whatever the hell I want with it (including give it away for free) ..etc. But frankly, those discussions never seem to get anywhere, because this is an ethical and constitutional matter. You want to protect somebody's supposed sales increase by preventing something that is an inherent characteristic of digital information. I see it as a violation of my right to free speech.

      Sooner or later people will come to realize that information is a completely different type of product that needs its own unique business framework(s) to be traded successfully. Until then, enjoy the legislative ignorance in this still-very-young industry.

    59. Re:Victimless by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Food and rent is taken care of by concert tickets and selling t-shirts and albums at the shows.

      Wait, you say you want to work only once in your life and then keep sitting on the copyright? Don't we all.

    60. Re:Victimless by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      The artists don't let people into their shows for free though, do they? No other way to get the scarce resource except by paying for it.

      And you don't know about it until you've heard the music first. Seems like something that costs the artist nothing to copy is a great advertising venue... unless of course they don't understand economics and would rather sit on their ass than keep working and contributing to society rather than just draining on it.

    61. Re:Victimless by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Big budget movies? They make tons of money in the theaters... if the theater experience is nice, it's well worth going to a movie over watching it at home or on your laptop. So there's that stupid argument countered.

      And TV? People pay for the convenience. Besides... most TV sucks. Every year they throw a bunch of shit at viewers and see what sticks, because they're too lazy or stupid to come up with something that's ACTUALLY good. There's a lot of waste in the system.

    62. Re:Victimless by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      "You've complete carefully avoided my point which is this -"

      I am sorry, I didn't intend to. Honestly.

      1) Copyright was not included into the US Constitution because of stopping sharing of the work. It was in interest of "Progress of Science and useful Arts" - sorry, I don't see how sharing of the work is againist the progress of it. Copyright does promote sharing. If I write some software and there is no copyright, the only way I can restrict who has it is by NDAs and DRM. And for those of us without trust funds who want to charge for our work, restricting who has it is the only way to do it. Copyright allows you to make something widely available and still legally have a way to only allow people who've paid you or abide by a license to use it. It's the same with patents. And both can be sold outright or licensed.

      From an FSF point of view look at it this way. If copyright didn't exist then everyone would be free to proprietarize GPL code, just like they can for BSD code. Essentially the GPL would disappear and all former GPL code would be defacto BSD.

      2) I am saying that the market mechanism should change from compulsory payment on the work per distributed copy, to voluntary payment directly to the autor for distributed noncommercial copy AND compulsory payment for commercial copy. You could do this with present day copyright and a well written license.

      3) You are correct in this, don't worry :)

      "My question is simple. Since sharing is moral and authors of GPL code don't get much of a cut, is it OK if I take GPL code and use it as I see fit?"
      If you keep it free (as in speech) for other people, go for it. Moreover, you don't have to redistribute your changed/derived version under the same terms as long as you are not doing so commercially (or at least, this is what I think, IANAL).

      The license terms don't apply only to people who I like, they apply to everyone. I won't resort to analogies, since you are intelligent.
      Copyright holders on proprietary software shouldn't have the same right to object againist unauthorized copying as the FSF on unauthorized non-free copying since the first does not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", while the second one certainly does. How would that work? Copyright is copyright. Would there be a 'first class' copyright for FSF approved Free software and 'second class' copyright for TV shows and movies?

      "Maybe the FSF should form an anti copyright infringement alliance with the MPAA and RIAA in fact. They all seem to be organisations that gain their power from holding the copyright on other people's work."

      FSF holds copyright on the GPL licenses. It doesn't hold copyrights on the copyrighted work, all rights stay with the developer himself. Actually it does

      http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

      It doesn't pay them either, so far as I can see. So it's a tad hypocritical to use the fact that record companies don't pay the artists very much as a justification for copying don't you think?
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    63. Re:Victimless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually.. Ideas these days are owned by the patent office and who ever made the claim.. at least in western society. Capitalists own your ideas my friend.

    64. Re:Victimless by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      Sooner or later people will come to realize that information is a completely different type of product that needs its own unique business framework(s) to be traded successfully. Until then, enjoy the legislative ignorance in this still-very-young industry.

      Young industry? Different laws? What on earth are you talking about? We already have completely different laws for trading information - copyright and patents. They may be called "intellectual property" by some, but the subjects of copyrights and patents are not covered by the same laws as tangible items. From those laws we already have different business models for companies which trade information from those which trade tangible goods. The laws and business models are not new because the trading of information is not new. It's been going on for centuries using essentially the laws be have now. The only difference now is that it's easier and cheaper to duplicate and transmit information, but fundamentally its the same shit as has been going on since well before computers were invented, let alone the internet.

      This debate was had centuries ago and it was decided that the restriction of freedom to exchange information was outweighed by the incentives to invent, compose, create and collate information which copyright and patents provide. They are merely time-limited monopolies, the information reverts to the public domain after a while (though after far too long in the case of copyrights as they currently stand). The idea is that in the end we all get more inventions and information than we otherwise would and it seems to work.

      What new laws do you propose? How do you propose you make it viable for people to make a living as, say, a writer if their work can be freely distributed without any kind of compensation for them? They need to eat you know. If they can't get money to sustain themselves from writing they will find another job and the world will have lost a writer.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    65. Re:Victimless by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      If you make a point to only download films that are more than 20 years old then I'll take that argument seriously, otherwise to be honest I think you're just making excuses.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    66. Re:Victimless by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Most of the films I watch are purchased, rented, or borrowed on DVD from friends. I download some of it, but most of it is acquired through channels that properly reimburse the producers. As for the rest -- well, my only excuse is that I don't have a lot of money. It's either download it or watch less, so I think the degree of unethicalness there is limited. (Like you, I think that argument is hollow when people aren't spending any money on such things -- but I think it's a more reasonable one when there's a real mix of the two going on. As a fraction of my current income, my movies and such budget is probably quite normal.)

    67. Re:Victimless by ittybad · · Score: 1

      I am quite concerned for your outlook in regards to "but who struggle to make a living." What right have you to determine, in a free society, what is sufficient for another human to earn based upon their labors? Whether they make a meager living or an extravagant one, they have the right to sell their product and be paid for it. Your "right" to have things free and your way are infringing on their rights to prosperity. Only thing is, their right is protected by the constitution. If you are going to illegally infringe on one's copyright, there is no need to justify it to yourself that you are taking from the big guy or the little guy; you are still taking.

      --
      No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
    68. Re:Victimless by ultranova · · Score: 1

      No, because they don't use it anymore. But if you stopped paying but hotwired the meter to get power for free that would be wrong. It would also be a reasonable analogy for downloading a movie for free rather than paying to watch it, unlike yours.

      No it wouldn't. Electric energy is a physical, limited thing. If I use some, then the energy company needs to burn more coal to produce that power. Since neither coal nor the equipment needed to produce electric energy with it are free, the power company loses money; not like the copyright cartels, who count "lossses of potential profits" as losses, but as in actually having money and then not having it anymore.

      Contrast this with downloading a movie with BitTorrent, where no one has lost anything measurable afterwards.

      Physical things with limited quantities and nonphysical things with limitless quantities simply aren't similar, no matter how much the copyright law tries to make the latter into the former.

      TV shows have an copyright owner. The copyright owner wants you to pay them in some way to see the show. If you don't want to watch it, that's fine. But if you do watch it for free that's not fine.

      Simply because someone wants you to pay them doesn't mean that you have any kind of moral obligation to do so. Nor does stating that something is "not fine" make it so.

      It's just like Linux. It is protected by copyright. If you want to use it there is a copyright license which forces you to keep forks open source.

      Actually, the GPL only takes effect when you distribute the code, not when you merely use it. But in any case, I'm fine with abolishing all copyright, including the ones on Linux kernel.

      And that's legally not fine in most countries, quite apart from the moral issues.

      I have never argued that ignoring copyright is legal. I've merely argued against your claim that it is "not moral".

      In the US, Copyright is actually in the constitution. So don't expect it to go away soon.

      Perhaps the US could introduce "Copyright Zones", where the copyright is in effect ? You know, in teh spirit of Free Speech Zones ?

      Really, copyright is in the interests of some large corporations; that is why it won't be going away anytime soon.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    69. Re:Victimless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The piracy losses for a company are passed on to the consumer. They don't even need to know what the losses are. They just charge based on how many people are willing to pay, and how much the movie costs to make. So, if you pay for movies legally, you are paying for those who download them via bit-torrent.

    70. Re:Victimless by stderr_dk · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something obvious? Yes, you forgot that they are idiots.
      --
      alias sudo="echo make it yourself #" ; # https://pipedot.org/~stderr & http://soylentnews.org/~stderr
    71. Re:Victimless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand what the word sharing means. You aren't sharing something if you didn't own it to begin with.

    72. Re:Victimless by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      I am not talking about the broken patent system, but only specific parts of the "copyright" concept as applied to information sharing. This sharing IS new and the industries based on the information alone (software, digital music) are new, and the means and reasons for which people share this info is new as well. Software has been around for 50 years. It is an infant industry, and the legal system understands very little about it. A program is very different from an e-book or a music file, they serve entirely different purposes from the operational (and therefore commercial) point of view. That is why licensing schemes for software are so intricately difficult. Nothing has been decided "centuries ago" - the debates only started to mature in the 80s-90s, and licenses still leave much to be desired.

      Like you said, the purpose of all these schemes is to allow the creators to monopolize on the PROFITS temporarily. Nobody can sell my work, or my ideas, other than myself. Remove the financial activity from the copying by the "criminal", and you suddenly leave yourself outside the realm of this intuitive logic. We are left with "potential" and "possibility" of profit "lost" by having people not be forced to buy information - information which we have no evidence to believe they would have bought if it were not free. Similarly, if you take out the attribution (the claim of origination) and tampering issues (if someone changes something, they do not attribute it to the author) then you have no falsities or "lies" being told that you have to fight against.

      The current DMCA practices do not have anything to do with the original intentions of copyright and patent systems. I write software and music and literature (all on a small, vulnerable scale), and I refuse this blatant violation of people's freedoms completely.

    73. Re:Victimless by RobNich · · Score: 1

      It's like victimizing royalty by taking away land they aren't using so that commoners can hunt for food. There's almost no relation here. Land is not created by that royalty and land is necessary in order to have food, which is essential for survival. Neither of these are true for entertainment.

      Being civilized means respecting the rights of others to life and liberty - it doesn't mean giving others the right to be rich. I have no problem with people being rich but I feel no need to defend their wealth. The "right to be rich" is exactly what is meant by the rights of life and liberty. If someone can take away your property or prevent you from controlling it, it's not really yours, is it?

      I don't believe that being rich makes them more productive so from my point of view it's better if they have to continue struggling for their wealth by doing useful things like producing more music, movies, and other cultural resources. Sitting on their ass enjoying their wealth isn't really a boon for humanity although most of us wouldn't mind being able to do so. And yet there's no reason for them to be productive in the first place if they can't control and keep what they earn through doing so.

      I'm not defending the media companies, who rarely produce anything worthwhile in the first place and only have control over artists' creations because of their monopoly. But your description of production and property is extremely flawed.
      --
      Hello little man. I will destroy you!
    74. Re:Victimless by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Food and rent is taken care of by concert tickets and selling t-shirts and albums at the shows.
      That tells artists three things:

      "Don't bother doing the recordings. They're too much hassle for not enough profit. Just stick with playing live."
      "Don't bother trying to be too successful. If you do a relatively mediocre job, you'll still be sold out from the inevitable flocks of fans who are starved for music"
      "Don't bother writing music that can't (or shouldn't) be performed live. If it's got anything more innovative than the drummer, guitar, vocals combo, we don't want to know about it"

      Wait, you say you want to work only once in your life and then keep sitting on the copyright? Don't we all.
      Yeah, they could work once in their life. If their creation really is that valuable, then sure, why wouldn't they? Most people, however, would be inspired to create more from their earlier successes. Keeping people impoverished doesn't exactly inspire them to keep going.

      Imagine if you were to work at your job as it is, except you work unpaid for many months at a time with the promise that if your work is up to scratch, you'll turn over a tidy profit at the end. OK, that's fair enough. Now imagine that that tidy profit at the end was cut into a quarter on pay-day, and you were blamed for essentially being a sucker for working under such conditions. Not only that, you were told that you have it too easy, and that the money you were receiving would just make you lazy and complacent. Suddenly, you're the bad guy: a person who is selfishly demanding money for your previous work. What would you do? Would you feel inspired and motivated to continue to work at the same job? Or would you find something else to do, something with a bit more job security, a bit more respectability, and a bit more cash in the pocket?
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    75. Re:Victimless by Repton · · Score: 1

      You seem to be implying that depriving someone of something doesn't make them a victim as long as it doesn't leave them struggling to survive.

      Perhaps I implied that, but it wasn't my point. How would you describe the RIAA's way of calculating damages, or estimating "losses" due to piracy? I hope you would again use the phrase "complete and utter bullshit"

      If you point to a popular artist whose songs are being traded --- are they actually losing money? Can you prove it? In my personal case, artists I've pirated fall into two categories: Artists I don't like, and artists whose CDs I have subsequently bought. If I couldn't try before I buy, I would have been much more conservative and probably not bought any of those artists anyway.

      But if you can point to someone whose songs are popular and who is obviously not earning as much money as they should, then I would accept them as an indisputable victim of music piracy.

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
  5. The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the more torrents will slip through your fingers.

    1. Re:The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin... by 93,000 · · Score: 1

      Hey, what's that foul stench?

  6. Holiday TV sucks by Fluffeh · · Score: 2

    Well, the proof is clearly in the pudding. If school holidays didn't mark the end of anything decent on the tele I can assure you that the hoards of people wouldn't be racing off to download something better off the net than the horrid renditions of Dickens Christmas Carol being shown on the box.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  7. How does the MPAA know its movie-stealing? by freedom_india · · Score: 1, Informative

    I used BitTorrent more during holidays to...download various linux distros, exchange vacation photos and videos with my friends, 'tested' my router, 'tested' comcast whether it complied with its own policy, downloaded movies i BOUGHT from BitTorrent.com and downloaded Farenheit 9/11 about 3 times just to be sure (after all Michael Moore allowed me to do).

    So saying bittorrent usage is higher == movie/music stealing is higher is like saying iam getting poorer because the bush government's tax cuts benefit the rich only. Wait! Isn't that true? Sorry, its linking my home foreclosure with Bear Stearns bailout. Wait! Dammit Fox news, you have made me think like an idiot!

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:How does the MPAA know its movie-stealing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So saying bittorrent usage is higher == movie/music stealing is higher is like saying iam getting poorer because the bush government's tax cuts benefit the rich only. Wait! Isn't that true? Sorry, its linking my home foreclosure with Bear Stearns bailout.

      I'm not quite sure what you are saying in the last sentence, but yes, unrestrained government spending is making you poorer because once the government no longer chooses to tax the people to fund the programs, it has two sources to get the money which is borrowing or printing money, both of which used excessively cause runaway inflation (please don't quote bogus government generated numbers of today).

      Inflation favors those with assets such as some rich people. The middle-class have their savings wiped out and the poor can't even live paycheck to paycheck because their dollars buy less (and they won't be getting a raise).
    2. Re:How does the MPAA know its movie-stealing? by rgo · · Score: 1
      You are right, Ars Technica seems to be drawing conclusions out of nowhere. They cite the BigChampagne CEO but he never mentions that the higher traffic could be attributed to piracy. Also, the article doesn't mention if other P2P networks like eDonkey have gotten less users, thing that could explain the surge.

      PS: BigChampagne, the people who made the study, is a company that analyzes which music is popular on P2P networks. They've got like a P2P equivalent of the Billboard charts.

    3. Re:How does the MPAA know its movie-stealing? by severn2j · · Score: 1

      Another legitimate use I noticed yesterday was when updating the Metal Gear Online beta for the PS3, it uses Bittorrent to distribute updates.. A great idea considering how popular the series is, but nothing to do with piracy. The music/movie industry seems to be doing a very good job of promoting the idea that BT == Piracy..

  8. Publicity and HiDef by WarwickRyan · · Score: 1

    Seems logical, people grabbing some HD content for their HDTVs, combined with a general increase in userbase due to all the adverts the MPAA/RIAA keep running about TPB and bittorrent in general.

  9. Like churchill said by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't trust any statistic that I didn't make up myself.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  10. Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited by frkbros44 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The current authoritarian tactics are an obvious failure, and are causing substantial collateral damage to innocent victims of miss-targeted enforcement efforts. The solution isn't more of the same, but rather to accommodate human nature and evolving technology.

    The only reason why P2P file sharing is a problem is because copyrights have been extended into perpetual special privileges. Copyrights were only needed in the first place due to the limitations of physical media and the brick and mortar distribution system. Both of those are now obsolete - as are the artificial market distortions justified by their limitations.

    Just as the Internet offers a far more efficient distribution system, it also offers the ability to shorten the time require for a creator to recover fair value for his work before releasing (some) rights to the public domain. A modified dutch auction over the Internet provides the means for artists to be fully compensated at the moment they finish their creation. Once the artist has received fair value for a recorded performance, there isn't any need to attempt to control how consumers choose to use that recording. The P2P file sharing that today is called piracy, and used to justify ever more abusive intrusions into the rights of all people in order to enforce unnecessary copyright restrictions, becomes highly valuable viral promotion and distribution that benefits the artist.

    Remember that the artist has already been cut of meaningful earnings from the reproduction and sale of recordings by the typical "all rights" contract terms imposed by the legacy record labels. Only a tiny percentage of artists earn a living from royalties on their recordings. For most artists, the primary benefit of selling records is just the publicity - they still make most of their money from live performances. File sharing and "word of mouth" on the Internet are much more effective promotion than the paid advertising of the legacy labels.

    1. Re:Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason why P2P file sharing is a problem is because copyrights have been extended into perpetual special privileges. Copyrights were only needed in the first place due to the limitations of physical media and the brick and mortar distribution system. Both of those are now obsolete - as are the artificial market distortions justified by their limitations. You're joking, right? Copyright relevance hasn't changed at all. What difference is there between making a physical _copy_ and an electronic one.

      For the record, I don't agree with (software) patents. I agree with copyright / trademarks in theory -- but they definitely need a good overhaul .. but let's not make up stupid arguments.
    2. Re:Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What difference is there between making a physical _copy_ and an electronic one. A physical copy always has an incremental cost - that of the physical medium.
      An electronic copy has an incremental cost so small that it is typically in the noise.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Which is irrelevant if most of the costs you pay for either is essentially a license fee. I remember reading that the cost of pressing a CD in volume was only a few cents, back when CDs were launched. So the reproduction cost has never been a significant percentage of the purchase cost of either music or software.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for being overly literal. The question still remains, why is copyright more valid on something with a higher 'incremental cost'?

    5. Re:Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited by frkbros44 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The core objectives of copyrights and patents are essentially the same - to encourage creativity and benefit the public good. Creativity is encouraged by allowing the creator a monopoly right to exploit his work product for long enough to extract fair value. In return for this limited period of protection, the creator's work becomes public domain.

      It was specifically the expected benefit to the public good of timely transfer to the public domain of technical knowledge and creative works that justified the distortion of even a limited duration monopoly within a free market economy. So the overt intention of patents and copyrights has always been the eventual transfer to public domain. The only question has been the duration of protected monopoly needed to extract fair value compensation before the copyrighted work becomes public domain.

      In 1776 copyright protection was set at 14 years. It's only been in the last few decades that copyrights have been extended from a few years to somewhere around four generations beyond the lifetime of the creator - essentially a perpetual special privilege. The current period is an extreme aberration in copyright history - at least during the period when copyrights bothered to mention the rights of the creator at all. (The original and continuing primary purpose of copyrights has been to protect the "rights" of "reproducers".) It is also an extreme violation of the public interest since it delays transfer to the public domain beyond the useful value of many/most works.

      Returning to the original purpose of copyrights, the legitimate duration of monopoly protection is a function of the time required to monetize the creative work sufficiently to return fair value to the creator. Once the creator has obtained fair value, there is no further justification for monopoly protection.

      In the current business model, most artists receive their only compensation as an advance. The record labels routinely demand that creators sign over all rights to the resulting recordings. So the current extended copyrights don't protect the rights of creators in the first place - they protect the monopoly production rights of those selling copies of copyrighted works. The legacy record labels have lobbied for repeated extensions to copyright protection on the basis that ever longer monopolies were needed to compensate for the high costs of capital intensive manufacturing and distribution.

      Eliminate the high costs of the legacy record labels and you eliminate the need for extracting vast wealth from the music trade. Creators can be better compensated for their contributions to the popular culture, while the costs to consumers can drop to a level reflecting the true cost of digital production and distribution.

      What is really needed is for enough people to see past the efforts of the legacy record labels to artificially preserve the limitations of obsolete technologies, and allow the free market to implement the legitimate purposes of copyrights in more efficient ways.

    6. Re:Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited by Zerth · · Score: 1

      If I steal a physical CD, that costs the artist the nickel it was worth in incremental cost. Since the artist only gets maybe a dime per CD, I've cost him a huge amount(relatively) since he has lost both the revenue for that CD and still has to pay the cost of the CD.

      And I wouldn't be suprised if the label puts him on the hook for all the other costs associated with getting the stolen CD to market.

      But if I copy an mp3, he has neither lost the cost of anything(he didn't pay for the electrons), nor lost something that generates revenue. And no, he hasn't lost my potential sale, I may still buy the CD, while if I had stolen a CD he would definitely be unable to sell the stolen CD.

      Conversely, I think it is worse to steal a CD at a concert since the artist generally pays more for those CDs and also receives a higher % of the sales. Which is why, given a choice, I buy CDs directly from the artist. I'd do it even if they were to charge more for them than retail, although that has only happened once so far.

    7. Re:Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Thanks for being overly literal. It is not overly literal. It is the HEART of the matter.

      Copyright is a contract between society and creators. Once upon a time the ability to copy something was beyond the means of most men - owning a printing press required that you be an upper-class businessman in a time when the middle class was quite small. Thus giving up the right to make copies in return for some amount of incentive for creators to create and publish was a reasonable balance -- the majority of society gave up a right they could not make use of and creators got a government granted and enforced monopoly in copies of their work product.

      Times have changed.

      It is now possible for EVERYONE to make a copy for effectively nothing. The cost to society of giving up the right to make copies is much, much greater than when the original contract was struck.

      Instead of trading away something we had no use for, we are now trading away something very much like freedom of speech (you'll note that the concept of freedom of speech makes no differentiation between original and unoriginal speech). But not only is the contract worse on the side of how much society pays, it is also worse on the other end - what society receives in return. The original 14-year copyright term is now essentially indefinite - under the current terms as dictated by the content cartels, copyright can easily last for more than a century and will probably continue to be extended on a regular basis so that the public domain is never enriched again.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  11. fakegeek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you can expect the numbers to increase considering Demonoid is back.

  12. Getting the old folks on BitTorrent by PRlME · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My 65 year-old parents recently asked me how they could also watch all the shows & movies that I've been downloading all these years. So being the good son that I am, I set them up with uTorrent, the appropriate bookmarks, VLC, and a tutorial on how to handle everything. They were quite happy. :)

    1. Re:Getting the old folks on BitTorrent by craagz · · Score: 0

      i did not educate my dad properly about the various versions of rips that are floating around trackers. he ended up downloading a really bad print. And then I had to find a better print.. That shud count towards more traffic. Sometimes, my DVD writer doesn't write files well. I end up downloading them again. Sometimes, my friends nick my DVDs and I have to download all the movies again. All counting to more traffic

    2. Re:Getting the old folks on BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      way to set your 65 year old parents up for a lawsuit. what a terrible son you are.

    3. Re:Getting the old folks on BitTorrent by mxs · · Score: 1

      When asked, I will tell people how.

      I will also tell them that they better have good trust in their provider not to give up their information and/or the stomach to face a multi-million-dollar lawsuit (statutory damages can EASILY add up to that) with real scummy $5k-$10k settlement offers. When asked I'll also tell them about alternatives (such as Usenet or TOR). The last thing I need is them coming to me 2 years later with a "but you never told me this was not actually free, and now I have this lawyer bill to pay !" kind of attitude.

      Oh, and I don't tell them about how they can get their favourite TV show/music/movie on the day it's released in excellent HD quality without hassle and playable on all their favourite computers and toys in the house for years to come, legally for an appropriate amount of money -- since the content providers summarily don't offer anything of the sort and then cry like little babies when many of their would-be-customers turn to copyright infringement instead -- it's just less hassle, better selection, and better quality.

    4. Re:Getting the old folks on BitTorrent by PRlME · · Score: 1

      Oh boo. Has anyone been sued for downloading a TV show? That's all they really want, my first post was incorrect as they already have netflix for movies.

    5. Re:Getting the old folks on BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boo. Has anyone been sued for downloading a TV show? Don't you think the RIAA's successful lawsuits and settlements are clear precedents that show that your grandparents CAN be sued for downloading TV shows? What kind of shitty grandson would put his grandparents in this kind of situation? Just download the shows for them and send them burned DVDs.
    6. Re:Getting the old folks on BitTorrent by mxs · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly believe the networks won't follow the MPAA and the RIAA soon ? They're only just discovering that method of distribution ...

      (not to mention that if your folks, say, download Stargate the show and the MPAA thinks it's Stargate the movie, they won't exactly quibble about the details ...)

  13. Not all trafic is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure - P2P has increased, but more and more software vendors are distributing their software using Bittorrent.

    So saying an increase in P2P traffic is equivalent to a increase of illegal streams in not at all correct. A lot of Linux vendors also use P2P to distribute their distro's. A lot of them are about 4Gb in size, so that would be a nice increase of traffic. Also you will notice an increase of traffic within a few day's when the latest Ubuntu hit the web...

    And it's not only the Open Source vendors that are using this distribution method. More and more Closed Source software makers ar starting to use this distribution channel, simply because it lowers the cost...

    So - saying an increase of P2P traffic is the same as an increase of illegal content is absolutely not true!

    1. Re:Not all trafic is illegal by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      Did you even glance at TFA? The graph shows traffic for the 200 most popular torrents listed on major sites like TPB. Even if some Linux distribution is in that 200, which I very seriously doubt, legitimate torrents are hardly driving the growth in the traffic reported there.

      You can continue to tell yourself fantasy stories like this to make you feel better while downloading. The rest of us know that the vast bulk of BT traffic infringes copyrights right and left.

      I use BT to download anime fansubs. I know it's illegal, but I do it anyway because there are shows I'll never be able to see in the US otherwise. I buy DVDs for my favorite shows if they are released here; I buy the Japanese soundtrack CDs for favorite shows that will never see the light of day in America. I wouldn't have spent any of this money without torrenting, so overall the industry has gained from my actions. I don't think I'm very representative of the torrenting community at large, though.

      I don't torrent any material that is available legally in the United States.

  14. Not all torrents are piracy! by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 4, Insightful
    BitTorrent is crucial for the economical distribution of large-filesize media. Many Open Source and Free Software publishers use BitTorrent to distribute their installers. Jamendo, a distributor of Creative Commons-licensed music, uses both BitTorrent and eMule.

    BitTorrent is also critical to unsigned musicians such as myself who offer downloads of their music from their websites. P2P allows bandwidth to be contributed by one's fans, whereas direct HTTP downloads can bankrupt a struggling artist if one of their tracks becomes a sudden hit.

    And yes I know there are many music hosting sites such as MySpace. But it's better for musicians to offer downloads from their own sites rather than to use a host.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Not all torrents are piracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The popular World of Warcraft franchise uses bittorrent protocol to upload it's patches.

    2. Re:Not all torrents are piracy! by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      You should do something with your homepage. If I came to your website looking for new music I'd probably leave before giving it a fair chance. No reason to sell yourself short. Your music is interesting. I wouldn't mind hearing more. Have you tried anything besides the piano?

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    3. Re:Not all torrents are piracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but how many people actually listen to CC-licensed music? I'm guessing it's in the low thousands, worldwide.

    4. Re:Not all torrents are piracy! by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      so im about to download your stuff... Im form chicago Ive been in a band with marimbas before so we'll see but that website was really confusing as the other replier said. This post is so I'll get back to you

    5. Re:Not all torrents are piracy! by malinha · · Score: 1

      The music that passes on my company phone central while people wait is all CC-licensed no mumbo-jambo mp3's. :)

    6. Re:Not all torrents are piracy! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Don't forget http://bt.etree.org/, the largest legal live lossless music tracker on the Internet.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. AT&T by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1, Funny

    We're raising the bar, your world delivered, AT&T.

    --
    "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
  17. Private bittorrent networks by GNUPublicLicense · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a security and privacy feature, people shall now start to deploy full encrypted trackers on which only people they know can connect to (password or PSK). And that additionally to "public" trackers. Another thing, some transports should be able to hide randomly torrent traffic in well known protocols in order to avoid CPU efficient detection. Torrent traffic means data and control stuff from the tracker and other peers. The idea is to make tracking torrent users unreasonable and inefficient regarding net performance. Namely, torrent user tracking will cost a lot and would kill net efficiency.

    1. Re:Private bittorrent networks by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  18. Sorry, everyone! by rubicon7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll throttle my client back a bit.

    --
    --- We are not in the 8th dimension. We are over New Jersey.
  19. there you have it - a victim by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lately I've been downloading Gilligan's Island. You should be ashamed of yourself. If it wasn't for your downloading, Mary Ann from Gilligan's Island would never have turned to drugs. Thanks to you and your ilk, she was busted smoking pot in her car, no doubt contemplating how illegal downloading has destroyed her life.
    1. Re:there you have it - a victim by XHIIHIIHX · · Score: 1

      How the fuck do you fail a field sobriety test from being stoned? And remember kids, don't roll and drive, roll then drive.

  20. Yarr, scurvy MPAA will be dancing the hempen jig. by falsemover · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In Australia a CD / DVD be around $40 (about US$37). Since this represents about $37 o' pure greed, it's no wonder t' people be votin' with their mouse. I say, when t' sea be rough, jump on t' starboard ship.

    Arrr, ahoy landlubbers, we be PIRATES and YOU MPAA will be dancing the hempen jig.

    --
    consider coffee a lubricant that helps one penetrate the coding zone
  21. Ironic in a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I was reading the article, they mentioned that you could download "whole seasons" of TV shows bundled together. While at the moment I'm downloading the whole series of Deep Space Nine. (Hey, I plan on buying the DVDs some day, I'm just broke at the moment.)

    1. Re:Ironic in a way by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While packaging whole seasons together can be convenient, it really sucks that it's difficult to find an individual episode of a series if it isn't relatively new. I was searching long and hard for a torrent of the Season 6 episode of The Simpsons "Bart vs. Australia", but I ended up having to download all of season six just to watch one episode. That's a waste of bandwidth (though luckily my ISP seems not to care about my 100GB/month habit).

    2. Re:Ironic in a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      hmm, you can order downloading of individual files within a torrent, you didnt have to download whole season

    3. Re:Ironic in a way by Kredal · · Score: 1

      If you use uTorrent, as soon as the dialog "where do you want to save this?" comes up, it lists all the files with checkboxes next to them... uncheck every file except Bart vs Australia, and that's the only one that will be downloaded.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    4. Re:Ironic in a way by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      Well, except if the guy who packaged the torrent rar'ed them into little rar pieces making it impossible to download individual files/episodes. I refuse to even go near those split rars anymore.

    5. Re:Ironic in a way by Hatta · · Score: 1

      God that's dumb. BitTorrent has no problems transferring an entire directory tree. Video files are already compressed. There's absolutely no reason to put it in any sort of archive whatsoever.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Ironic in a way by WMD_88 · · Score: 1

      Those RAR combo torrents are just direct transfers from the Usenet bundles. Apparently it's too much work (or takes up too much hard drive space) to make the torrent from the video files themselves. Sigh.

  22. I used to sing too, and will again in the future by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 1
    I'm going to need some voice lessons before I do though. If I sing now I croak like a frog. But I was quite a good singer back in the day.

    I'm thinking of also taking up the Marimba. I think it would be fairly easy as the bars are arranged just like piano keys.

    What is it about my homepage that turns you off? I really appreciate your feedback.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  23. Obligatory quote by Justabit · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm doing my part..Are You?

    Do you want to know more?--->www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTz9nIUkGc
    Available here---> http://www.mininova.org/tor/1010533

    --
    "Persistance is Fertile" - Me. I can quote myself if I want to.
  24. didn't the same thing happen with napster? by thermian · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall that napster was a minority sport until it got media attention, then suddenly everyone I knew was using it .
    I was at uni at the time, and probably unique in not knowing about filesharing till napster was being forced to close.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:didn't the same thing happen with napster? by MttJocy · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a form of the Streisand effect to me, attempts to sensor content result in the exact opposite, namely drawing attention to, popularizing and increasing the availability of the content, granted it usually referred to a specific piece of content, in this case however by attacking a tracker site linking to large amounts of content they have managed to create this effect on all the content supplied by the site as well as actually enhance the public awareness of the protocol itself.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

  25. So if traffic is up 24% by Afty0r · · Score: 1

    And all p2p of copyrighted media is stealing, that must mean that DVD sales and box offices takings are down 24% in just four months.

    Crikey, the industry must be really hurting!

  26. Re:Yarr, scurvy MPAA will be dancing the hempen ji by malinha · · Score: 1

    In Portugal a regular music cd costs around 15euro ( +/- US$27 ) but you can find the latests games for 55/60euro ( about US$95 ), a movie is charged at 25euro ( about US$40 ) ... i pay for my 24/1 adsl 49euro ( about US$ 77 ) and i get 120gb + unlimited on national ISP's, i have 1.5 Tb of disk space, the choice is obvious...

  27. When talking about BitTorrent... by the_arrow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Things are happening in the case against The Pirate Bay. One of the police officers involved in the investigation now works for Warner Brothers in Sweden. See here for more info.

    --
    / The Arrow
    "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
  28. Re:I used to sing too, and will again in the futur by repapetilto · · Score: 1

    Ok man, Im gunna be completely honest with you... I love this but I can send you shit I made up that sounds the same as alot of shit and singing isnt necessary but if your trying to make moeny or something I dunno but music is an awesome hobby and i can send you my own shit if you know a good way to do it (its guitar based) and maybe you can gain something from me like i did from you because thats what this internet thing is all about

    ps ignore my bad grammer

  29. don't worry by newr00tic · · Score: 1

    Your homepage is fine, so I'd write it up as 'different tastes,' (if at all anything.)

    --
    A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
  30. Most torrents ARE 'piracy' by HetMes · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't try and make a point about torrents not being 'piracy' by mentioning a few users who downloaded a Linux distro last winter. Anyone knows it's a flawed argument; they're statistically irrelevant anecdotes. Remember those words, as they apply in almost any debate where a general statement is made, and some not too bright person tries to refute it.

    1. Re:Most torrents ARE 'piracy' by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the list of torrents downloaded please subtract

      Linux Distributions
      Other 'free' Software
      Non-Copyright Music
      Non-Copyright Movies
      Creative Commons Content

      You still have a very large number of downloads ...but then how many of these people would have bought the content they downloaded?

      The industry always complains that they have lost $x million in sales but they do not allow for the fact that the vast majority of the downloaders would never buy what they downloaded?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    2. Re:Most torrents ARE 'piracy' by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      we will make points about legitimate torrents. For a lot of open source developers, torrent is a viable and important distribution channel.

      for people like you (bitter and cold), it will always be seen as the inverse mass of its parts.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    3. Re:Most torrents ARE 'piracy' by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      The industry always complains that they have lost $x million in sales but they do not allow for the fact that the vast majority of the downloaders would never buy what they downloaded? How many people download copies of films, T.V. programmes and music that they already own in another format? I often wonder about the relative morality of this. It's possible to argue that you don't purchase a copy of the work, just a licence to consume. Between you and me it's much easier to nip across to TPB and grab a copy of something I own on vinyl than to copy the original into whatever format I want to use.
    4. Re:Most torrents ARE 'piracy' by scaryjohn · · Score: 1

      The fact that BT is used to transport large, legal downloads doesn't excuse people using it for illegal purposes. But the fact that it is prone to substantial noninfringing use means the technology itself can't be made illegal or presumptively contrary to civil law.

      The two caveats are, of course, what is "substantial" and how does the DMCA change things.

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    5. Re:Most torrents ARE 'piracy' by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 1

      I have a netflix subscription that I use frequently. Usually 2-3 movies per week. However, there are times when I end up with two movies that my wife added to the list that I have NO interest in watching. She make take two or three weeks to turn them around. Is it wrong that I download a couple of DVDs in the mean time? I would have gotten them from Netflix anyways, so I don't see any problem with it.

    6. Re:Most torrents ARE 'piracy' by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Non-Copyright Music
      Non-Copyright Movies

      Nitpick: pretty much everything is copyrighted by default. I think you meant "freely distributable".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    7. Re:Most torrents ARE 'piracy' by Maestro485 · · Score: 1

      The industry always complains that they have lost $x million in sales but they do not allow for the fact that the vast majority of the downloaders would never buy what they downloaded? I actually take that to the extreme. With the ease of acquiring music via BitTorrent, if there's a song that I want to download I just find a torrent of every album the artist ever produced and grab that instead. When you do that for a couple of older acts like Bruce Springsteen or Bob Dylan you can be damned sure that I wouldn't come close to purchasing all of those albums (just between those two guys we're nearing 100).

      In fact, I think it's completely insane that I could even be expected to spend $1000+ for just those albums (and I'm not even sure I'll listen to all of them in their entirety).
  31. Mandriva Spring Edition must be popular by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, obviously lots of people must be downloading the latest Mandriva Linux...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Mandriva Spring Edition must be popular by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      Just wait until Hardy Heron comes out in a week!

  32. Oblig. Office Space Reference by stupidflanders · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    Theft is theft. Period. If you don't like it, change the law.

    PETER
    So when the subroutine compounds the interest, right, it uses all these extra decimals places that just get rounded off. So we just simplify the whole thing and we just round it down and drop the remainder into an account that we own.

    JOANNA
    So you're stealing.

    PETER
    Ah, no. No. You don't understand. It's, uh, very complicated. It's, uh, it's, it's aggregate so I'm talking about fractions of a cent that, uh, over time, they add up to a lot.

    JOANNA
    Ok. So you're gonna make a lot of money, right?

    PETER
    Yeah.

    JOANNA
    Ok. That's not yours?

    PETER
    Well, it, it becomes ours.

    JOANNA
    How's that not stealing?

    PETER
    I don't think, I don't think I'm explaining this very well.
    1. Re:Oblig. Office Space Reference by __aapego3562 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Theft is theft. Period. If you don't like it, change the law. And by changing the law, theft wouldn't be theft anymore? That's hypocrisy!
    2. Re:Oblig. Office Space Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      copyright infringement is not theft.

    3. Re:Oblig. Office Space Reference by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Well, lets look at laws about murder. Just because you kill someone doesn't mean you have committed murder. If it is in self defence, we as a society have decided that it is not defined as murder, as defined by law, and not something you should be arrested for. In the same way, if we decide that sharing music, movies, and software for non profit isn't theft, then it isn't theft. Laws have been wrong in the past and they have changed. It's not that theft wouldn't be theft anymore. But that certain aspects which could be interpreted as theft wouldn't be recognized as illegal in a court of law.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  33. If every download is a lost sale... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should this not mean that there's going to be a 24% reduction in sales?

    Actually, since the reason for the $220,000 fine for sharing 24 songs was "thousands of people could have downloaded it", this should really mean a 24,000% reduction!

  34. It's increased? *gasp* I'm really amazed by Eternal+Annoyance · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Negative publishing is publishing. Many more people are now aware of the existence of bittorrent and, even worse, are aware how the entertainment industry deals with piracy. The consequences are simple: more and more people distrust the entertainment industry and start using p2p networks (among which bittorrent).

    How does the entertainment industry respond? Not by removing or reducing the reason of illegal downloads. Not by gaining trust with the people. No, imagine that sales might actually go up because the price is actually affordable and/or you could easily buy the song or movie you want without any additional crap.

    Instead of putting energy in sales (adapting to the market), they put energy in piracy (lobby to get various ineffective, annoying laws applied; suing their clients; Digital Restrictions Management). Result: because of the various annoyances and of the bad reputation of the entertainment industry, piracy increases.

    If they'd just adapt to the market, their problem would disappear like snow for the sun (or, at least, reduce to acceptable proportions).

  35. You could email it to me by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 1
    I'd be happy to listen to your music.

    Email it to michael@geometricvisions.com

    I hope to earn money from live performances someday, but I'm determined that my recordings will always be free.

    For now, my aim is to build a base of fans who might buy tickets to my shows someday, and to study piano and music theory so that a few years from now, when I can pass the entrance audition, I can enroll in music school to study musical composition.

    I want to compose symphonies someday!

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  36. Your labor is owned by society by patio11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is what makes up our culture. Sometimes we, as a society, have seen fit to let the laborer execercise some limited degree of control over the fruits of the labor. This does not mean any one person can own their labor, any more than they can own a sunset.

    There, I fixed that for you. Sounds like a crappy way to structure a society... good thing nobody would ever be stupid enough to go for it. Oh wait...

    I write software for a living. If I stop getting paid for it, I'll stop doing it. There won't be any more sunsets, for the ~1,000 people who are dependent on my software. You can claim "society owns the idea" all you want, but "ideas" are hard to compile. Society has not produced workable bytecode, except insofar as "society" has chosen to make a "market" and the market pays enough to make it worthwhile for one engineer to create bytecode. (And to market and whatnot, which are my more important contributions. It wouldn't help society out very much if the solution were buried in the basement water closet behind a sign that said Beware Of The Hairy OSS Programmer, right?)

    http://www.bingocardcreator.com/

    Here is my broken OSS competitor. Get cracking, it needs a LOT of work. I suggest starting by fixing whatever the bug is that prevents it from working on Windows. Then you might clean up the GUI a bit. Go on, get cracking -- you owe it to society, after all.

    http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/bingo-cards

    1. Re:Your labor is owned by society by evanbd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, ideas and physical objects are fundamentally different. I see nothing wrong with limited term copyrights -- 20 years, maybe less. Tell me, in what way would your incentive to create software be diminished if you could only hold the copyright for 20 years? Do you have any belief that you can make money from the 20 year old version of your software? If not, why shouldn't it pass into the public domain?

      Ownership of physical objects makes sense because if I take your car, then you no longer have a car. If I copy your software... you still have your software. So there's no fundamental moral argument for the ownership of software. There is, however, a strong practical (not moral or ethical) argument for ownership of limited term copyrights, intended to promote creation of such works.

    2. Re:Your labor is owned by society by citylivin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Here is my broken OSS competitor. Get cracking, it needs a LOT of work. I suggest starting by fixing whatever the bug is that prevents it from working on Windows. Then you might clean up the GUI a bit. Go on, get cracking -- you owe it to society, after all."
      Well if you open source the code im sure that someone who needs* a "bingo card creator" would be happy to contribute. As for your hard work and energy, well im sure you'll be happy that someones using it instead of it just sitting on some drive atrophing. Judging for your post though, that probably wouldnt make you happy unless you could then sue the person for "stealing your ideas!!!11"

      "I write software for a living. If I stop getting paid for it, I'll stop doing it. "
      Oh no! and what with a worldwide programmer shortage too! Content gets made. period. Especially entertainment and tools. Society has evolved by copying entertainment and tools and it wont stop just because you want to horde knowledge and think you deserve a profit.

      *disclaimer: no one needs this.
      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    3. Re:Your labor is owned by society by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I write software for a living. If I stop getting paid for it, I'll stop doing it. There won't be any more sunsets, for the ~1,000 people who are dependent on my software.

      Even without copyright, nothing stops those 1000 people from paying you to write a new version of that software. In fact, without copyright, they can hire anyone to write the new version, so not only can they have a sunset, but they don't need to beg you for one. I know, it's a revolutionary model, but consider: rather than have the plumbers own the plumbing in your house and have them charge you an annual fee for using it, you could pay them for the act of installing it and then own it afterwards !

      And, to stay true to my own principles, I'll let anyone who wants to use this idea - I'll call it "work for hire" or "employment" - for free.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Your labor is owned by society by Weezul · · Score: 1

      In general, authors of successful open source packages have profited handsomely from them, just indirectly. Such people are usually worth employing to work on their own projects because you can simply immerse them in an environment where them solving their friends problems makes you money. Plus the ambitious ones sell the profitless company that owns the code for tens of millions.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  37. Re:I used to sing too, and will again in the futur by Hucko · · Score: 1
    The only thing I could see worth noting is the long scroll page without much content -- just links to other pages.
    1. 1. A page should only one screen (doesn't include the browsers menus and tool bars etc....) worth of information. (There are exceptions such as a lot of text based info which should be broken up roughly every screen anyway.)
    2. 2. A menu system should be universal to all pages, like what you have on the first page.
    3. 3. Whitespace is good, except when you have too much.
    4. 4. It should be obvious what link is meant for which pic.
    Other wise, I'd have said it is simple therefore not too bad. I wouldn't personally have your colour combinations, but that is a preference and it still is a good look. Should I mention you have got further than I have as I don't have any content to display therefore no website?? Ah my sig lives again.
    --
    Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
  38. Bittorrent via Miro by Burz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Miro is a video feed aggregator, player, search tool, downloader with torrent support; recently out of beta and has improved a lot.

    The Miro folks are even trying to help people distribute their videos via bittorrent, esp. as a way to get full SD and HD shows published at low cost.

    It kind of competes with Youtube, but with better video quality. It even handles feeds from Youtube.

    1. Re:Bittorrent via Miro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Miro is great. My 63 year old mother was missing seeing "Coronation Street" (she used to watch it when we lived in England, and more recently my sister could get it in Detroit from Canada). I sent her a link to Miro, and now she's a regular BitTorrent user. I warned about the slight possibility of legal troubles, but she didn't mind that.

      Miro makes BitTorrent as friendly and easy as iTunes.

    2. Re:Bittorrent via Miro by Duck+of+Death · · Score: 1

      My torrent use is up dramatically over the past 6 months or so and it's because of Miro. And except for a couple of shows that our DVR "forgot" to record, everything I've downloaded has been legal. So it is possible for bittorent use to increase dramatically without being the result of piracy.

      --
      "Can I finish? Can I finish? ... Okay, I'm finished."
  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. You crashed your car into my blade of grass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MPAA Are still going? I thought they were dead and buried.

    PirateBay's publicity, and the fact that pirate movies make awesome, cheap, gifts then it's no wonder. And you always have people "I'll download illegally this once for Christmas" who end up continuing their downloading.

    They remind me of that song "I Get knocked down..."

  43. Slavery is illegal by Burz · · Score: 1

    So the substitution doesn't fit. And confusing labor with the product of labor is disingenuous.

    Both revenues and profits in the entertainment industry continue to increase in the face of rampant copying because it allows people to become exposed to far more material that they had forgotten about or never knew they liked. That's a huge contrast to having our culture rented out to us based on what multinational corps perceive to be trendy and market-able.

    They blew it. Right at the moment when everybody was about to go online, media corps were writing legislation for obscene amounts of entitlements over content produced by people already long dead, and introducing medieval concepts like "intellectual property".

    I do believe in copyright to an extent, as most people do here and elsewhere. But I wouldn't encourage you to enforce it to a very large degree unless you want to remain obscure.

  44. BitTorrent Website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wondering if anyone knows if it'd be feasible to make a "distributed website" via torrent, with a "bittorrent browser"?

    No idea what the actual USE would be, but it's been churning in my skull, off and on, for a bit.

  45. A Titanic Reason for the holiday spike by acroyear · · Score: 1

    "After a peaking at almost 12.5 million downloaders on the 200 most popular files, traffic dropped at the beginning of January"

    Well, probably the main reason for this is one of those 200 most popular files (well, several 'cause lots of people seeded different copies): The new Christmas episode of Doctor Who!

    Lots of us Yanks would rather not wait 6-8 months to get their Who fix when the sci-fi channel finally gets around to it.

    --
    "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
    -- Joe
  46. Obviously by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

    Now that we have started acting like children we should be treated like children. I'll expect George Clooney to come by my house, give me a cookie and prop up my self esteem.

  47. Canadian music/movie tax: by pizpot · · Score: 1

    Canadians:

    $5 per month of your internet bill and 2% of blank cd/dvd price goes to the Canadian music & film industries.

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. Martin Korth by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    Not personally, but Martin Korth from NO$GBA seems to be getting the raw deal from piracy. He does everything right, with a free version for casual gamers, a cheap version for non-commercial use (which I use, it's a fine piece of software), no DRM, no activation, no required CD-ROMs, only non-invasive watermarks. Yet, apparently, he suffers from large amounts of piracy, if you believe his site. He seems awfully bitter about the whole affair, and he's relying partially on donations to keep NO$GBA running.

    But that's only the shallow, superficial definition of victim. It's still possible to be a victim if you're not impoverished.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  50. Obviously Norwegian Public Television is to blame by Mark+Cicero · · Score: 1

    They released Nordkalotten 365 as a bittorent file, saved oodles of money in the process, and now we hear usage is up. Add the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Canada's Next Great Prime Minister to the mix and of course the numbers will skyrocket. Downloading television shows illegally is so passé.

    --
    The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of my brain.
  51. They Block Bugmenot Users by WebmasterNeal · · Score: 1

    That 25% increase might be higher if they didn't block bugmenot user names AND at the same time their stupid registration page doesn't work for me in any browsers either. I used them a lot until all of that happened.

    --
    "During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
  52. You goofed, MPAA! by kimvette · · Score: 1

    Instead of embracing P2P and offering low-resolution (say no higher than 320x240 with low bitrates) versions of your movies available for pennies or even no cost (maybe embed advertisements for discounted DVDs, or trailers for upcoming DVD and theatrical releases) you instead chose to start a public campaign slandering all P2P usage.

    For me, ALL of my P2P usage is legit (linux distros, etc). I no longer try before I buy. When I was, I was buying anywhere from 5 to 15 DVDs per month. Now I buy two or three per month. I buy maybe one CD a year because the RIAA chose to bite the hand that feeds it. I have reduced my DVD purchases for the same reason - you are trying to squelch new technology and what you DO offer in downloadable formats, you INSIST on crippling it with DRM, which breaks fair use and prevents me from watching the content on my computer (I run Linux).

    With your propaganda, all you have succeeded in doing is providing bittorrent free publicity. Joe Sixpack, who was previously totally unaware that bittorrent even existed, is now using it for everything from music to movies to software.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  53. Tragedy by ultranova · · Score: 1

    It looks as though the MPAA's fight against The Pirate Bay and other BitTorrent sites isn't going very well.

    Tragic. My heart bleeds for them. I'm crying, I'm crying like a baby.

    Arrr ! Hoist the Jolly Roger ! Death to the copyright lobby !

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  54. free leech season by qanzark · · Score: 1

    December was an interesting month for the torrent trackers. its was free leech for like 5 out of the 8 sites with passwords, that i visit. then January is the seeding month for all the leeching that transpired, GO BITS. GO BANANA!

  55. I'm part of that growth trend by FailedTheTuringTest · · Score: 1

    I recently set up torrentflux on my always-on box at home, sharing some music from Jamendo and the latest Kubuntu beta. Nothing wrong with that. But I sometimes wonder if someone will see that I'm running a bittorrent node and attack me because of that, without bothering to notice what content I am sharing.

    1. Re:I'm part of that growth trend by XHIIHIIHX · · Score: 1

      comcast will if you share too much.

  56. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  57. Misleading by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Its an erroneous but very common mistake to presume the amount of P2P traffic is directly relative to the amount of copyrighted music being illegally traded. It seems to me that more and more legal stuff (device drivers, service packs etc) are being made available as torrents, in some cases exclusively.

    For example, many popular linux distros are made available as torrents. I wonder how much of the spike is actually down to the fact that people are fed up with vista and downloading alternatives to it?

  58. the occasional tv torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I download the occasional TV show via torrent. I justify it because my tv is not working. So the choice the tv producers have is: I plain just don't watch their show.. or I was it and they at least get the in-program advertisement out to me. Doritos for instance. Mmm doritos.

  59. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  60. oops... by whopub · · Score: 1

    BitTorrent Use Up 24% Since November Sorry, that was me! Found a new porn tracker and things got... uh... out off hand...
  61. Re:I used to sing too, and will again in the futur by Zerth · · Score: 1

    1. A page should only one screen (doesn't include the browsers menus and tool bars etc....) worth of information. (There are exceptions such as a lot of text based info which should be broken up roughly every screen anyway.)

    Break everything up in to screen sized pages?

    Do you work for a newspaper or ad agency?

  62. Re:I used to sing too, and will again in the futur by Hucko · · Score: 1

    No, I read books. And the aforementioned maligned companies only use the length of the screen, and a 5 word width. My 'idea' is revolutionary because it uses the width of the screen! I admittedly did misspeak as the pages can have more than one screen of info, however it should be in screen sized chunks. People would rather a book be thick, rather than tall; they too should be around 2 - 3 (avg)palm lengths tall, but can be wider than a palm is long. More than that and people tend to turn off.

    --
    Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
  63. Why do you think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Why the analogy with Royalty.

    Because the RIAA makes (or rather, buys) the laws.

    There are other ways to make money, or even a living off of art. Those should be pursued rather than trying to get our government to spend lots of money to enforce unenforceable laws.

    If you were truly thinking of the artists, you would want them to have a stable income from a reasonable source. Not hope that they could somehow manage a living under a system that is no longer possible.

    Laws won't kill piracy any more than prohibition killed bars. Sometimes you have to work with people, not against them.

  64. Open sourcing my software would make it used less by patio11 · · Score: 1

    This is *not a hypothetical* -- Sourceforge gives out downloads as public information, and so do I.

    My OSS competitor has been downloaded 40 times in the last week.

    http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=47026&ugn=bingo-cards&type=prdownload

    My software has been downloaded 40 times in the last thirty minutes.

    (A related statistic, which typically tracks at a ratio of about 1 of these to 1.2 downloads: http://www.bingocardcreator.com/stats/bingo-card-downloads )

    There are a variety of reasons for that. One is that my software actually works and the OSS version is broken. The other is that the profit incentive makes it worthwhile for me to spend a sigificant amount of time and money promoting the use of the software, rather than just uploading it to a server somewhere with a description that doesn't even address the needs of the end user and then calling it a day.

  65. Patches welcome by patio11 · · Score: 1

    >>
    Well if you open source the code im sure that someone who needs* a "bingo card creator" would be happy to contribute
    >>

    I gave you a link to the OSS project in grandparent. It hasn't seen a patch since 2004. Reality sucks, doesn't it.

    >>
    *disclaimer: no one needs this.
    >>

    This is why we let customers decide what they "need" instead of letting lazy programmers on Slashdot decide it. Customers have signaled, via paying me ~$18,000, that they really do need this.

    http://www.bingocardcreator.com/stats/sales-by-month