Slashdot Mirror


LimeWire Lives Again

Slayer Silver Wolf writes with this excerpt from TorrentFreak: "'On October 26 the remaining LimeWire developers were forced to shut down the company's servers and modify remote settings in the filesharing client to try to harm the Gnutella network. They were then laid off. Shortly after, a horde of piratical monkeys climbed aboard the abandoned ship, mended its sails, polished its cannons, and released it free to the community.' And so, LimeWire Pirate Edition (LPE) was born. Based on the LimeWire 5.6 beta that was briefly released earlier this year and then withdrawn when Lime Wire LLC lost its lawsuit, LPE is now in the wild. In many ways, it is better than the version killed by the RIAA."

278 comments

  1. I for one... by zrbyte · · Score: 0

    welcome the new and improved pirate version.
    Good fileshaRRRing mates!

    1. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:I for one... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Don't go for any kind of disorginzation, chao, and other mayhem, unless I'm causing it. But I say fuck the RiAA

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    3. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...But I say fuck the RiAA

      Isn't that the general idea of throwing panties on the stage?

  2. Why by deathtopaulw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Limewire has been so painfully irrelevant for the past 8 years now that it laughable to even still hear the name. It's like when an old man mentions "That damn Napster" as a free music service. I can only imagine the people who still use this thing are admins just wanting to test their corporate anti-virus.

    1. Re:Why by tacktick · · Score: 1

      True. If I saw it on a computer I would uninstall it immediately

    2. Re:Why by martinux · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's a wonderful reminder to the companies attempting to shut down such services that it's almost completely impossible.

      I think the fact that they can say, "we're back" less than a month after a court 'killed' the service is going to be very disappointing to the RIAA/MPAA and other international equivalents.

      Their legal representation probably just threw an impromptu party though.

    3. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be surprised. Plenty of ignorants out there who only know this piracy method, and are too dumb to work out torrents / filehosting services, let alone FTP / IRC / Usenet.

    4. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Limewire has been so painfully irrelevant for the past 8 years now that it laughable to even still hear the name. It's like when an old man mentions "That damn Napster" as a free music service. I can only imagine the people who still use this thing are admins just wanting to test their corporate anti-virus.

      I used Limewire back in 'the day.' I still have it on my computer. I don't use it often anymore, because I just go ahead and pay the small price they ask when I want to obtain music. The times I *do* use it is when I have an obscure song stuck in my head, or I hear something on a movie soundtrack I can't obtain elsewhere, or similar situations. I have a new job. I'm not a computer programmer, nor do I have any inclination to be (nothing against them). It works, I find what I want, and I see no reason to change to the file sharing software du jour unless I need to. Why you were modded insightful is beyond me.

    5. Re:Why by Tx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having an ecosystem of different file sharing software and protocols is valuable insofar as it makes it harder to prevent all file sharing. Assuming you don't want to shut down all file sharing of course. The authorities tend to focus on whatever are the protocols du jour (at the moment bittorrent and rapidshare-type file lockers), but meanwhile you have all sorts of protocols from the past like gnutella, dc++, edonkey etc still happily working away mostly under the radar. I'd guess if you're sharing stuff you'd be less likely to land an enforcement notice if you're using a more obscure protocol. Maybe you might escape notice of deep packet inspection systems and so avoid throttling by your ISP, if they have implemented that.

      Just guessing, but in any case it seems sensible not to just assume that bittorrent is the apotheosis of file-sharing, and that nothing else will ever be useful.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    6. Re:Why by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      It does have a small advantage that everything in the shared folder is shared. So if anyone on the network has that song you want you should be able to get hold of it. Torrents explicitly need to be seeded.

    7. Re:Why by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Unless people constantly empty their "shared" folder....

    8. Re:Why by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      Yep, I'm thinking of starting to use just to spite them, even though I've never used it before (maybe I installed a couple of times to test it, dunno).

      --
      ics
    9. Re:Why by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 2, Informative

      My cousin uses limewire. How do I know? I was called in to remove the layers of viruses, Trojans, and rootkits from the machine. As soon as I saw that Limewire was on the machine, I knew this was a lost cause.

      --
      SSC
    10. Re:Why by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I make digital content.

      I don't think they steal.

      I'd rather they but the stuff, certainly, and would encourage then to do so but it turns out a lot of them actually do buy a decent amoutn of media as well as pirating.

    11. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's valuable to the self-interested, selfish 'the fucking world owes em free stuff' self-righteous arrogant cunts on slashdot yes.
      For everyone who actually makes digital content that the rest of you just fucking steal, no it is not a good thing.
      When are you dumbass thieving hippy cunts going to wake up?

      So I guess that means you're a porn star?

      Literally, sucks to be you.

    12. Re:Why by bedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Limewire has been so painfully irrelevant for the past 8 years now that it laughable to even still hear the name. It's like when an old man mentions "That damn Napster" as a free music service. I can only imagine the people who still use this thing are admins just wanting to test their corporate anti-virus.

      You'r right. Limewire is utterly irrelevant as a file sharing service - but it makes a useful case study in the use of litigation to destroy a product. If this pirate edition is well accepted, and traffic on the gnutella network increases, Hopefully the people that sued them will learn that lengthy, costly ligation against software developers is utterly futile if the developers release the code into the wild and the software is back a month later. Hopefully those who develop efficient file sharing paradigms and technologies will realise the best possible protection from litigation is to open-source their software from the beginning (Frostwire never gaught on) to give the best possible guarantee that any legal action will, ultimately, be unsuccessful.

    13. Re:Why by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      >Limewire has been so painfully irrelevant

      Wow, I guess you must not know 99% of the computer users out there....if I had a nickel for every time someone was using outdated software, or even used a process that was neanderthal in practice compared to today's other available options, I would be the new bill gates.

    14. Re:Why by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Boo-hoo... the filthy pirates are taking away my government-granted monopoly!

      Seriously, could we all grow up a little? We can have an honest discussion about copyright without resorting to name-calling.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Why by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      For most of the popular torrent clients du jour -- Transmission, Vuze, uTorrent, etc., as long as you don't later move the file, seeding is automatic as soon as you finish downloading. You have to either move the file from where you downloaded it, set a ratio limit to be reached, or otherwise manually stop seeding.

    16. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly... you can't catch me I'm the Gingerbread Man

    17. Re:Why by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Funny

      We can have an honest discussion about copyright without resorting to name-calling.

      Not here, we can't. You must be new here.

    18. Re:Why by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      exactly... you can't catch me I'm the Gingerbread Man

      Gingerbread Man or something similar would actually be a decent name for a new P2P system (if/when we ever move past Bittorrent).

      It is definitely fun though seeing these groups futility playing their little game of whack-a-mole.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    19. Re:Why by deathtopaulw · · Score: 1, Troll

      The problem basically stems from people having zero taste and diversity in music. When I was in my music sharing heyday, it was on Soulseek with a nice room full of friends who all enjoyed similar variations on harsh punk and noise music. Not a single one of the artists I found in my time there can be purchased on iTunes or found in even the dankest of dank music shops. Most recordings are live bootlegs captured off of vinyl from the 70s and 80s. I was never afraid of being sued because these bands were real, and never even had an indie label, let alone a big one.

      The moral of the limewire/filesharing lawsuit stories? Get some taste.

    20. Re:Why by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Informative

      True, but some trackers will not allow you to seed more than a certain number of torrents before it stops accepting connections from you. I've had this happen several times before when all my torrents went dead for a few days until I noticed that the tracker was sending back a "Too many torrents" error message. Pruning the list of active torrents a bit returned it to normal.

      Also, I'm not sure how true this is for other people, but for me, most files in torrents have an abhorrent naming convention, and just going into my giant default "Bittorrent Downloads" directory doesn't work well. Most stuff I'm going to rename and move to a more organized directory structure within a few days of download.

      Don't get me wrong, I still use Bittorrent more than anything, but for older or less popular files, I often find them on the ED2k network via aMule. Downloads are like molasses, but sometimes that's ok depending on what you're trying to find.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    21. Re:Why by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      True, but some trackers will not allow you to seed more than a certain number of torrents before it stops accepting connections from you.

      Who needs trackers? All of these clients support trackerless torrents.

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

      It would seem logical, in a democracy, to say that the "best taste" was the taste shared by most people.

      Have you ever considered that it might be you that has zero taste?

    23. Re:Why by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Democracy doesn't mean that the majority is right, just that they are in power.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    24. Re:Why by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 1

      Live bootlegs were captured to tape not vinyl.

    25. Re:Why by subsonic · · Score: 1

      Limewire and Myspace are two things that instantly signal that you're on the "shortbus" of the internet. Its like people who have aol.com email addresses and type "Facebook" into google... just facepalm-worthy stuff.

    26. Re:Why by laron · · Score: 1

      So, McDonalds provides the best food?

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    27. Re:Why by shentino · · Score: 1

      I would also take the step of immediately terminating with prejudice the wise guy who installed it, and possibly anyone in IT whose failure to properly supervise the network allowed it to persist.

    28. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You accuse other people for lack of taste and listen to harsh punk and noise? Nothing against those styles, or against anyone's taste, but if you're going to say something about other people's tastes, you might look at yours first. Plus punk music is quite popular and done in great quantities, I wouldn't say you're having "diversity" either (though I'm not sure what that means).

    29. Re:Why by deathtopaulw · · Score: 1

      Taste in this sense is not a "mine is better than yours" situation. I just mean get some. GET ANY. Have a god damn opinion. The radio is not your favorite band.

    30. Re:Why by deathtopaulw · · Score: 1

      I meant the digital audio now flowing through my ipod is often ripped off a vinyl. Yeah they probably recorded the concert on a tape but you usually find these things on 7" records

    31. Re:Why by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Also, I'm not sure how true this is for other people, but for me, most files in torrents have an abhorrent naming convention, and just going into my giant default "Bittorrent Downloads" directory doesn't work well. Most stuff I'm going to rename and move to a more organized directory structure within a few days of download.

      I symlink to the horribly named files from another tidy "library" directory, so if I want to watch Super Troopers, I go to Library --> Movies --> Super Troopers (2001).avi which points to /media/drivex/torrents/[LEETDOODZ]SUPER.TROPPERS.XVID.VENUM.LOLZ.2134234/super-troopers-hi-xvid.avi

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    32. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, a FTFY that actually fixes something rather than restating the parent post?

      Oh my shattered memes!

    33. Re:Why by zevans · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In a democracy with perfect information, that may be true. We don't live in one of those.

      People with minority tastes usually DO have better information because they take the time to seek it out, and the Internet is a fantastic tool for that purpose.

      Everybody else buys what they are told to, more or less. The "music industry" continues to pretend that this market is the only one, because that is the market they understand, and they do what they can through the courts to stop other market mechanisms from working.

      Real Soon Now a SoundCloud type service is going to start making money from micropayments to a large enough extent that the mainstream notices, and then it really is bye bye big labels.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    34. Re:Why by numbski · · Score: 1

      Y'know, Napster, and in turn OpenNap, are still what I believe to be the pinnacle of what music sharing is and could have been. I haven't used it anytime recently, but the last time I checked AudioGnome was still alive and kicking.

      Parts of Napster, like being able to browse each others' music library is still sorely missed IMHO.

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    35. Re:Why by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      Not really. It's disturbing just how many idiots still use it. For instance, the Yahoo! Answers (that site has the lowest collective IQ of any popular page on the internet, even beating Youtube commenters) computer section has been filled with people asking what to do now that Limewire was shut down. Hey guys, maybe that's why you keep asking about how to get rid of viruses, too, because the crap that comes up on Limewire is lousy with them.

    36. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nobody uses usenet anymore ---sharp jab to the ribs

    37. Re:Why by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Some private trackers have more (a lot more) content, and go by ratios, and so for people using them it's wise to turn of DHT because you get no credits for uploading to trackerless peers.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    38. Re:Why by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Usenet is still used for file sha... Wait, that's supposed to be a secret. Move along.

    39. Re:Why by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      Not at all. "taste" is the ability to tell which things are better than others, with a subjective "class" test. James Bond has good taste.

      Music that is in good taste will almost certainly have at least a small cult following. If you are the only person that has heard of them, I have bad news for you.

    40. Re:Why by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      New music is being recorded digitally, then DACced and pressed to vinyl. It's the hip thing to do.

    41. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Interesting... : 'The Gingerbread Man (also known as The Gingerbread Boy) is the anthropomorphic protagonist in a fairy tale about a cookie's escape from various pursuers and his eventual demise between the jaws of a fox.'

    42. Re:Why by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      I sought taste. I traveled far and wide. I cast my eyes upon Baroque. I sailed upon the smooth seas of Jazz Fusion. I banged my head to Queen. I horrified my parentage with Eminem.

      And then I realized this: all is vanity.

      And I listened to Pink Floyd.

    43. Re:Why by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      You can hear it in their voice from the first second. Limewire is popular with cocky bastards who will steal as much stuff as they can get their hands on.

      Thoughtful pirates aren't often using Limewire.

    44. Re:Why by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      But, CompuServe removed the little "newsgroups" button...how do I got pr0n?

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    45. Re:Why by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "The authorities tend to focus on whatever are the protocols du jour " But on a one-year delay. They don't react very fast.

    46. Re:Why by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Also, I'm not sure how true this is for other people, but for me, most files in torrents have an abhorrent naming convention, and just going into my giant default "Bittorrent Downloads" directory doesn't work well.

      Vuze allows you to rename the files in the torrent on the fly, so that you can have them named whatever you want, with no problems when sending to peers.

    47. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or, more likely, "you are a fascist record company shill who shoots puppies while snorting cocaine through one million dollar notes"

      Lars, is that you?

    48. Re:Why by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      From someone who despises McDonald's food, I'd argue that, yes, they do provide the best food in their price range. Of course, the definition of "best" doesn't have anything to do with "nutrition".

      For me, there's nothing in that price range that is palatable from a restaurant (loose term here), thus I either eat at home or splurge more.

    49. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on who's point of view you are coming from, the majority or the minority

    50. Re:Why by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      But people seem to not do that for whatever reason.

      Getting the more obscure files was always easier on the Kazaa/gnutella type networks than bitorrent.

    51. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as someone who worked in the cgi side of things for a reasonably active company providing some of that 'work'. i can tell you the people 'hurt' by this are never the one's going around screaming about it. case in point: my boss's boss couldn't afford a new audi somethingorother he'd been looking at for a while.

      his response : fucking pirates.

      reality: he'd jacked his pricing beyond all measure and we'd lost business to foreign competition working for 1/3 the price in malaysia.

      keep believing the bullshit, and soon that's all you'll believe.

    52. Re:Why by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      I would also take the step of immediately terminating with prejudice ...

      HR and Legal called - they "strongly advise" you to find a different phrase unless you'd like first hand experience ;)

    53. Re:Why by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      You have identified the driving force. People, for a wide variety of reasons, often act like sheep. They track with musical trends, political trends, philosophies, brand loyalties, etc. The Internet won't change that, but it does shape many fads, trends, belief pathways.

      Open source progs can help small bands create a self sufficient monetized presence on the internet. "Let a gazillion flowers bloom" (really)! Like making a Linux distro just for a band to sell tunes on the internet and a server to facilitate it.

    54. Re:Why by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Seems like it would be hard to find rare stuff whether in physical or Internet form. However, it seems the availability situation would improve once someone puts it in filesharing form. Mirroring the content's availability in another filesharing format is also helpful.

      I have noticed that filesharing (and other Internet-related industry changes) can work as well for the majors as they do for indies, whether or not the majors have that through their thick skulls yet. Although majors dominance is decreased in this new environment, it's thus still present to an extent

      And who are you to legislate taste? My stuff is better because it's less popular seems no better than 'my stuff is better because it's more popular'.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    55. Re:Why by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      To you maybe. Most users don't quite know how to use BitTorrent or how to search a tracker.

    56. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taste in this sense is not a "mine is better than yours" situation. I just mean get some. GET ANY. Have a god damn opinion. The radio is not your favorite band.

      I'm sorry, I forgot that we're not allowed to like anything anyone else likes. That shows our lack of taste, obviously.

      I'd continue, but you've so clearly revealed yourself to be a troll by now, it'd be like arguing with a parrot. But thanks, man, at least you're carrying the torch of "trolls who at least sound interesting at first before driving ire", not the usual "just scream obscenities and racially hateful comments at every opportunity" type we normally find on the internet nowadays. Cheers!

    57. Re:Why by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      also, having the same thing available on multiple filesharing services increases content availability, period - some people know about or prefer one over another. For example, putting up a torrent version of content picked up from YouTube or MediaFire

      In general, there can be value in the grunt work of building one large convenient collection.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    58. Re:Why by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Honestly, extreme punk and metal are amongst the few genres I can't listen to - got a wide array of other stuff, including good less-extreme punk/metal (The Clash, Iron Maiden, et cetera)

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    59. Re:Why by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Although the bandwagon effect is a valid concern, I think there may also be network effects at work, which are perfectly logical to accommodate. This doesn't improve the quality of the recordings themselves, but it can improve the quality of the overall experience including but not limited to the concerts, to have a larger fanbase involved.
      Something cool about being part of smaller groups too - a preference, another option.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    60. Re:Why by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The Mole might be another appropriate (though not as fun sounding) name.

      Thanks for the chuckle :)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    61. Re:Why by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      giganews, easynews.... just search for usenet and you can't miss them all...

      Oh wait, you don't want to pay...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    62. Re:Why by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yea, because you really miss anything at 192khz 32-bit floating point....

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    63. Re:Why by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Bah, stupid brain. I meant 96khz.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    64. Re:Why by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Don't bother. Waste of time. Bit Torrent instead.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    65. Re:Why by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      >Gingerbread Man or something similar would actually be a decent name for a new P2P system

      You clearly don't remember the end of the tale, then:

      A sly fox came out from behind a tree. 'I can help you cross the river,' said the fox. 'Jump on to my tail and I will swim across.'
      'You won't eat me, will you?' said the gingerbread man.
      'Of course not,' said the fox. 'I just want to help.'
      The gingerbread man climbed on the fox's tail. Soon the gingerbread man began to get wet. 'Climb onto my back,' said the fox. So the gingerbread man did. As he swam the fox said, 'You are too heavy. I am tired. Jump onto my nose.' So the gingerbread man did as he was told.
      No sooner had they reached the other side, than the fox tossed the gingerbread man up in the air. He opened his mouth and 'Snap!' that was the end of the gingerbread man.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    66. Re:Why by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Which is fine since it is the nice introduced by the vinyl that people like so much. Whether they realize it or not. Surprisingly, I am starting to run into more people that do realize it.

    67. Re:Why by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      I run uTorrent and have several dozen torrents in it; I use both TPB and DHT. Sometimes I get 'queued seed' or a red arrow. However, only at most a dozen or so torrents seem to be sending out data at any one time. (I tend to let old torrents continue to seed)
      uTorrent lets you choose the destination directory when opening a torrent; I do select something appropriate to my usual organization schemes and thus end up seeding the files and using the files form the same place. My Documents\Downloads is just used as a sort of 'other'.
      I do sometimes upload/reseed a torrent with the benefit of renamed and retagged files. (I can suffer minor problems in metadata without bothering with this). Sometimes I combine several downloads into a larger torrent, sometimes I make one torrent that breaks off pieces of a larger torrent.

      Sometimes I don't feel the need to continue to seed a torrent that already has a bazillion other seeders (although I'll leave well enough alone); it's more important to maintain your own uploads or other torrents with only a few seeders. My upload bandwith sucks anyway.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    68. Re:Why by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      People who don't *love* music don't go out of their way to find it. And so the pop comes to them. :(

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    69. Re:Why by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Speak for just yourself there- you certainly don't speak on MY behalf on that subject.

      I certainly make digital content and I don't think they're stealing...I don't like what they're doing, mind, because it's still bogus as stealing- but it's NOT the same action and has actual differing terms for it in the law and elsewhere.

      As a reality check, it should be noted that you're not entitled to money with anything creative- only to the ability to attempt to make some with it or something else related to it. All these infringements are doing is taking potential sales away from you. Doing it on a mass scale can preclude your making any money, yes- but it's not stealing. Stealing would be someone hacking into your bank's computers and pulling all the money out of the virtual bucket the bank holds for YOUR money- or the old-fashioned way of holding a gun to your bank (or yourself) and saying "give me all the money".

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    70. Re:Why by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I need to keep the torrent open and it will make the list of active torrents huge. Also, to seed a new file, I need to create a torrent and upload it somewhere, but with eMule (or similar) I can just drop the file in my "shared" folder and it will be shared automatically. People will be able to find my file even if the file name is different (but the hash is the same).

      I sometimes download files using eMule that have something like 1 source on a >300k user server. Good luck finding that file in a torrent.

    71. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      banged your head to Queen? Which head? Did your boyfriend help?

    72. Re:Why by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Parts of Napster, like being able to browse each others' music library is still sorely missed IMHO."

      I think soulseek has that part covered

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    73. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Playing the devil's advocate) I'm going to wake up right after you MAKE me wake up.

      Protip: Math is on the side of the filesharers; you cannot prevent 100% of piracy with anything less than a totalitarian police state (and, even if that happens, I'm still not sure you'll be able to stop piracy). As long as one can transmit 1 bit of information steganographied inside spam, one can pirate. And we all know spam isn't going anywhere just yet ;)

    74. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Limewire has been so painfully irrelevant for the past 8 years now that it laughable to even still hear the name. It's like when an old man mentions "That damn Napster" as a free music service. I can only imagine the people who still use this thing are admins just wanting to test their corporate anti-virus.

      As an IT guy from a fairy prominent university, I can tell you that 90% of student computers brought in for repair have LimeWire installed and set to run at startup. Irrelevant is hardly the word I would choose.

    75. Re:Why by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Limewire has been so painfully irrelevant for the past 8 years now that it laughable to even still hear the name.

      True. If I saw it on a computer I would uninstall it immediately

      Sometimes the point is to say: Whatever you try to kill, I can bring back to life. Your move.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    76. Re:Why by Hatta · · Score: 1

      True, but some trackers will not allow you to seed more than a certain number of torrents before it stops accepting connections from you.

      Which trackers do this, and why? It's in everyone's interest to keep torrents seeded for as long as possible. From experience, only about 5-10% of my torrents have leechers at any one time. If I were limited to, say, 10 torrents I wouldn't be uploading anything half the time. By keeping 100 torrents open, I can ensure that my upstream bandwith is saturated, and all those torrents never get dropped from the tracker. I really don't understand the reasoning behind this policy.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    77. Re:Why by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      not really, though maybe among the geek community. Everyone I know who pirates music/movies uses limewire or frostwire.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    78. Re:Why by treeves · · Score: 1

      That's why he said "doesn't mean" and not "means that the majority is never right". "Doesn't mean" doesn't mean "never means". Ouch. My head hurts.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    79. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Because I sure as hell don't torrent individual songs and can easily find them on LimeWire (and no way in hell will I ever use iTunes again). Any one with half a brain can be safe against viruses on LimeWire, too, but apparently most of the tech community only shares half a brain as a whole.

    80. Re:Why by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "CompuServe removed the little "newsgroups" button..."

      'bout time. ...ihnpss!gryphon!richard

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    81. Re:Why by ultranova · · Score: 1

      People with minority tastes usually DO have better information because they take the time to seek it out, and the Internet is a fantastic tool for that purpose.

      People with minority tastes may or may not have better information than the rest. That, however, is irrelevant to the question of whether those tastes themselves are better than those of the rest. For that matter, it is unclear what "better taste in music" even means - that you like the same thing as the speaker?

      Everybody else buys what they are told to, more or less.

      Isn't RIAA's whole issue here that they don't ?-)

      --

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

    82. Re:Why by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Another mod who thinks "troll" means "something that I don't agree with."

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    83. Re:Why by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Or, more likely

      I'd actually expect both. You get these name-callers on both sides, but you also get reasoned arguments against copyright here on Slashdot.

      The problem is that the discussion gets framed as either "people who want stuff for free" or "giant evil corporations". Which is of course absurd - EVERYONE wants stuff for free, including the IP creators, and "giant evil corporations" are not the only stakeholders in IP law.

      If we could argue over what IP actually is and should be, it would be a much more interesting and productive discussion.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  3. Arrh, me hearties! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Shiver me timbers, the good ship LimeWire sails again! We be sharin' the booty them thar lily-livered lawyers tried to keep away from us once again!

  4. You can't win by jank1887 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine

    1. Re:You can't win by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. I'm glad you said it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:You can't win by Chapter80 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine

      The first thing that popped into my head was: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

  5. really? by tacktick · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Horde of piratical monkeys? Ouch That is like calling Micro$oft's developers a legion of mindless coding robots. Oh wait..

  6. it's been said by Combatso · · Score: 4, Funny

    that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.. does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys, or just the practice of giving monkeys keyboards?

    1. Re:it's been said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys

      No, they will sue them for damages.

    2. Re:it's been said by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

      Too many high profile special interests are attached to either monkeys or keyboards. Therefore, the *IAA will have the FDA interrupt the normal food sources of monkeys; and require them to eat the same processed foods as humans. From the artificial preservatives and genetically engineered rape seed oil, the monkeys will eventually develop attitude problems and social dysfunction. Depending on the prevailing genetic traits of the monkeys, they will either recreate Linux or MS Windows.

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    3. Re:it's been said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will seek to outlaw nothing, but they may sue for damages citing prior art.

    4. Re:it's been said by sorak · · Score: 2, Funny

      that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.. does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys, or just the practice of giving monkeys keyboards?

      If the RIAA has proven anything, it's that an infinite number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually write a series of Vin Diesel movies.

    5. Re:it's been said by VShael · · Score: 2

      that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.. does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys, or just the practice of giving monkeys keyboards?

      Neither, since Shakespeares works are in the Public domain and we don't have an infinite amount of time.

      However, Dan Browns novels will take a dozen monkeys about two weeks, so I think you might be on to something there.

    6. Re:it's been said by debrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere

      Wouldn't an infinite number of monkeys instantaneously recreate the works of Shakespeare, or one monkey working for an infinite amount of time?

      Two infinites does not a greater infinite make.

    7. Re:it's been said by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 3, Funny

      To be fair, a Vin Diesel movie can be written by just 2 or 3 monkeys over the course of a week or so.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    8. Re:it's been said by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Come on guys, there's no need to insult the monkeys.

    9. Re:it's been said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two infinites does not a greater infinite make.

      The rational numbers are infinite, the irrational numbers are infinite, add them together and you have the real numbers, which is a "larger" infinite set than the rational numbers (and probably the irrationals, though I can't say for sure since I've never attempted that proof).

      I do agree with you, though. I've never understood why you'd need infinite monkeys and infinite time.

    10. Re:it's been said by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

      You mean + != 2??

    11. Re:it's been said by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

      Never mind, my symbols seem to have been dropped.

    12. Re:it's been said by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      Won't a finite number of monkeys working for infinite time or a infinite number of monkeys working for a finite time also recreate the works of Shakespeare?

    13. Re:it's been said by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      I think you just showed the meaninglessness of using the word "infinity" in a physical context.

      "An incomprehensibly large number" does not mean the same as "an infinite number". There are not an infinite number of particles in the universe.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:it's been said by Combatso · · Score: 1

      if you ask them nicely, then yes.

    15. Re:it's been said by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I live life a quarter banana at a time...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    16. Re:it's been said by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      don't insult the monkeys like that.

      I'm sure they can do a whole movie in like 15 minutes.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:it's been said by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.

      That's been said, but now that we have the blogosphere we know that's not the case after all.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    18. Re:it's been said by bigtone78 · · Score: 1

      Do you really think it took an infinite number of monkeys to write The Pacifier? My guess would be 2 chimps a bonobo and maybe a gorilla (to simulate Mr. Diesel).

    19. Re:it's been said by Combatso · · Score: 1

      there is a difference.. the idea is that the monkeys are smashing their keyboards, producing mostly random garbage... with a small chance of actually forming words and ideas by mistake... or perhaps eventually they come up with written language the parallells ours... and by chance rewrite literature..

      Bloggers on the other hand produce seemingly random garbage that gets copy and pasted to other blogs, with no chance of forming ideas by mistake.

    20. Re:it's been said by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but when copying long strings of characters over and over like that, one might at least hope for the occasional mutation, and that once in a while one of those would actually be beneficial.

      I know, I know, idealist.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    21. Re:it's been said by squallbsr · · Score: 1

      they will outlaw neither only because Shakespeare's work is out of copyright, it's in the public domain. Now if we were to talk about Mickey Mouse, that would be a different story...

      --
      Sleep: A completely inadequate substitution for Caffeine.
    22. Re:it's been said by Combatso · · Score: 1

      since when do they need to play by the rules? It's only a matter of time before they decide that all rights to Shakespear are belong to us.

    23. Re:it's been said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Archaic syntax does not a wise person make.

    24. Re:it's been said by debrain · · Score: 1

      The rational numbers are infinite, the irrational numbers are infinite, add them together and you have the real numbers, which is a "larger" infinite set than the rational numbers (and probably the irrationals, though I can't say for sure since I've never attempted that proof).

      Quite right. There are two types of infinite cardinality: countable and uncountable. Countable encompasses the set of rational numbers, and calculable irrationals such as roots and all polynomial combinations of the those for which there is an isomorphic map onto the set of integers. Then there's the greater set, the uncountably infinite, e.g. the transcendental numbers and their ilk.

      I doubt the cardinality of real numbers would be greater than irrationals themselves, since most numbers are transcendental. It'd be like taking a teaspoon of water out of the ocean and wondering if it's still the ocean.

      Back to monkeys: One of infinite monkeys or infinite time may be a greater infinite than the other (i.e. uncountable), if only one of time or space maps onto the set of integers. Not that it changes the outcome: Shakespeare's works; but it's a good brain teaser.

    25. Re:it's been said by hacksoncode · · Score: 1

      It would still take enough time for the fastest monkey to type it out. Monkeys are not of infinite speed, AFAIK.

    26. Re:it's been said by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      The rational numbers are infinite, the irrational numbers are infinite, add them together and you have the real numbers, which is a "larger" infinite set than the rational numbers (and probably the irrationals, though I can't say for sure since I've never attempted that proof).

      Quite right. There are two types of infinite cardinality: countable and uncountable. Countable encompasses the set of rational numbers, and calculable irrationals such as roots and all polynomial combinations of the those for which there is an isomorphic map onto the set of integers. Then there's the greater set, the uncountably infinite, e.g. the transcendental numbers and their ilk.

      I doubt the cardinality of real numbers would be greater than irrationals themselves, since most numbers are transcendental. It'd be like taking a teaspoon of water out of the ocean and wondering if it's still the ocean.

      To be pedantic, the transcendentals are also countably infinite. The integers, rationals, algebraic irrationals, transcendentals, and quite a few others all fall under the heading of "computable numbers", i.e. numbers whose exact solution can be arrived at by a Turing machine given infinite time and tape. Even though it sounds like a ridiculously large set, the set of computable numbers is countable: for any Universal Turing Machine you like, each computable number maps to the natural number that encodes the initial tape for the UTM such that the UTM simulates any one of the TMs that can generate the computable number in question.

      For instance, even though pi is a transcendental and has no algebraic representation, there are well-known algorithms that iteratively generate as many digits of pi as you like. The infinite series of pi digits can thus be replaced with a (finite) computer program implementing one of these algorithms, and any finite series of pi digits can be replaced by the same algorithm plus the number of digits to stop at. A finite approximation of pi is merely cached output from the computer program, and therefore {program U finite approximation} adds no new information beyond {program} to help you distinguish pi from the other real numbers, meaning you can uniquely identify pi with just the computer program and no further information.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    27. Re:it's been said by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      Two infinites does not a greater infinite make.

      Are there more even numbers or more integers?

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    28. Re:it's been said by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      Wait, nevermind. I seem to be confused about something, Wikipedia says the transcendentals are uncountable. There's probably an argument for why Turing Machines can't be used to uniquely identify arbitrary transcendentals, e.g. there aren't enough Turing Machines to go around (Cantor argument), or you can't prove that a given Turing Machine identifies the transcendental you're seeking (Halting problem), or something.

      I'm still fairly convinced that pi is a computable transcendental, and probably likewise for most of the transcendentals that we've given names to, but I now suspect that the majority of the transcendentals don't fall in that category. Oops.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    29. Re:it's been said by debrain · · Score: 1

      Wait, nevermind. I seem to be confused about something, Wikipedia says the transcendentals are uncountable.

      In another universe, perhaps they are ...

      For the rest of us, Taylor series are the best oculus I can think of into the known transcendentals (Pi, e, sin(a/b), etc.). However, most transcendentals will remain obscure by virtue of being irrelevant.

    30. Re:it's been said by similar_name · · Score: 1

      Really you don't even need an infinite amount of either. An infinite amount of time and an infinite number of monkeys will produce Shakespeare long before infinity. :)

      If my math is right a 320x240 black and white picture is one of 1.269600234e+23119 images. If a computer could go through all of those images they would contain (an albeit grainy) picture of everything.

      From E=mc^2 to the crucification of Christ, to hiroshima, to every word ever spoken. To every sentence that can fit in 320x240 and be readable, to formulas yet undiscovered, to porn that would blow your mind. 1.269600234e+23119 may be big but it approaches zero as a percentage of infinity.

      No point to my post, I just think it's cool that while my screen/TV/LCD/eyes can produce/see what seems like an infinite number of combinations it is really very finite.

    31. Re:it's been said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol...best comment ever. Maddox from the best damn page in the universe should worship at your feet.

      Except he's currently being beat for impertinence by Chuck Norris.

    32. Re:it's been said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends, is Shakespear NP-complete?

    33. Re:it's been said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends, is Shakespeare NP-complete?

    34. Re:it's been said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Two infinites does not a greater infinite make."

      It a just duplication of effort.

    35. Re:it's been said by debrain · · Score: 1

      Are there more even numbers or more integers?

      They have the same cardinality: countably infinite. In other words, there's an isomorphism between the even numbers (integers, I presume) and the integers. They are, in terms of the quality of their infinity, the same. Contrast: the uncountably infinite (e.g. transcendentals).

    36. Re:it's been said by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      Wait, nevermind. I seem to be confused about something, Wikipedia says the transcendentals are uncountable.

      In another universe, perhaps they are ...

      For the rest of us, Taylor series are the best oculus I can think of into the known transcendentals (Pi, e, sin(a/b), etc.). However, most transcendentals will remain obscure by virtue of being irrelevant.

      Even in this universe, there are uncountably many uncomputable transcendentals. The canonical example of an uncomputable real is Chaitin's constant, which is the probability that a randomly chosen computer program (in some specified language) will halt. We can figure out the first few digits, but beyond that it's seemingly impossible to calculate. If you had a way to iteratively generate the digits in Chaitin's constant, you could solve the halting problem, and vice versa.

      My great-grandparent post was under the seemingly mistaken impression that "transcendental" referred to a distinct subset of the reals, something like "the reals with a well-defined Taylor series that are not algebraic", but instead (per Wikipedia) it appears to be "the reals that are not algebraic", which is a vastly larger set.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    37. Re:it's been said by debrain · · Score: 1

      Even in this universe, there are uncountably many uncomputable transcendentals.

      Oh yes, quite right! I meant the opposite of what I said ... :)

      My great-grandparent post was under the seemingly mistaken impression that "transcendental" referred to a distinct subset of the reals, something like "the reals with a well-defined Taylor series that are not algebraic", but instead (per Wikipedia) it appears to be "the reals that are not algebraic", which is a vastly larger set.

      I seem to recall seeing (or maybe it was just hypothesizing) a map from the set of all Taylor series onto the real numbers (indeed, the complex numbers). In other words, there is no transcendental number that cannot be arrived at by way of a Taylor series. As well, there is no convergent Taylor series (do they converge by definition?) that cannot be represented by a complex number.

      Transcendentals would, I believe, be the set of all numbers that are not countable, or countable combinations of countable sets – i.e. not algebraic. I believe this is the same as saying that the transcendentals are the set of complex numbers less all sets of polynomials with rational or root coefficients.

      So I think you were right that transcendentals may be the set of Taylor series that are not algebraic, which is also the set of reals that are not algebraic. The error is overestimating the size of the prior, which it turns out is the same set as the latter. Or so it would seem! :)

  7. Limewire??? by Stooshie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why would anyone use that virus-ridden "piece of eight" when you can listen to almost any piece of music you like, legally, on Spotify? (Legal film equivalents are being worked on too).

    --
    America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    1. Re:Limewire??? by PARENA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Specifically Spotify: because it's only available in a few countries, duh.

      --
      Here's the secret to immortality: ...oh dang, I forgot.
    2. Re:Limewire??? by RyuhoKudo · · Score: 1

      because it doesn't give you tentacle porn

    3. Re:Limewire??? by tehcyder · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well (a) you have to pay for the full spotify service, the free version is limited in the amount of time you can listen and has ads, and (b) there are other things than music that people download (movies, programs...)

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Limewire??? by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      Because you think that the entire world is America, er, Britain.

    5. Re:Limewire??? by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      Erm, Spotify is Swedish

      Maybe your countries laws make it difficult for companies like Spotify to set up license agreements. Campaign for better laws on copyright etc...

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    6. Re:Limewire??? by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      £5 per month (£10 to include mobile) is much less than I would pay if I had to download and pay for everything I listened to. + all the extras like searching, sharing, bios etc...

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    7. Re:Limewire??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grooveshark is another good free on-demand music site - and it works in the good ol' USofA

    8. Re:Limewire??? by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      It's OK. We have Grooveshark.

  8. Evolution of the fittest by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shut down a losing concept, and another improved version will take its place.

  9. Spotify Not Available to Me by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would anyone use that virus-ridden "piece of eight" when you can listen to almost any piece of music you like, legally, on Spotify? (Legal film equivalents are being worked on too).

    Because you don't live in the very small section of the world where Spotify is allowed? Also, LimeWire is GPL where as Spotify is proprietary (what are they storing about you?).

    But yes, I avoid LimeWire like the plague after several spyware debacles and am kind of curious why, if LimeWire's servers are down, you would use it over Gnutella when the networks it is connecting to are (I assume) all of Gnutella's servers?

    Hell, I would assume FrostWire is still a viable and better choice ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by mikael_j · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because you don't live in the very small section of the world where Spotify is allowed [wikipedia.org]? Also, LimeWire is GPL where as Spotify is proprietary (what are they storing about you?).

      Us europeans will stop pretending Spotify is available everywhere when all the americans realize that those of us over here can't download TV shows through the iTunes store and that Hulu blocks access as well (well, there are always US iTunes accounts and proxies but it's a serious PITA).

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by crackerjack911 · · Score: 1

      We'll do that when the Brits give us access to BBC iplayer!

      --
      You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson: never try.
    3. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      There are more Americans than there are Europeans who live in a country that gets Spotify. Plus, this is a US site.

      --
      SSC
    4. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone should create a service that matches Americans who want access to iPlayer with Brits who want access to Hulu. Each user would send data to their peers and receive data from their peers, and everyone would get to watch what they wanted. We could call it... I don't know... peer to peer?

    5. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I'm European too and I can't access Spotify, you insensitive clod! Europe has more than seven countries, you know?

    6. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Us europeans will stop pretending Spotify is available everywhere ...

      Everywhere? It's not even available in all European countries?

    7. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by compgenius3 · · Score: 1
      --
      Sexual intercourse is kicking death in the ass while singing. ~Charles Bukowski
    8. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How come it's not on a .us domain then?

    9. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by crackerjack911 · · Score: 1

      Awesome! I'd gladly pay a monthly fee for that (depending on quality of service and selection of course).

      --
      You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson: never try.
    10. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a Gulf of Serbia in the Europe now?

    11. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      If you need to search with characters outside Latin-1 your choices are limited. Limewire is one of only two Gnutella clients available for Windows that support Unicode. Unfortunately they're both Java apps to you basically have to pick your poison.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    12. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you don't live in the very small section of the world where Spotify is allowed [wikipedia.org]? Also, LimeWire is GPL where as Spotify is proprietary (what are they storing about you?).

      Us europeans will stop pretending Spotify is available everywhere when all the americans realize that those of us over here can't download TV shows through the iTunes store and that Hulu blocks access as well (well, there are always US iTunes accounts and proxies but it's a serious PITA).

      Oh, come off it, already. First we hear you sorry lot prattling on about how pants all our shows are and how European shows are clearly better in every respect, then you come up with this? Make up your sodding mind! Do you WANT our shows or don't you?

    13. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that would be redundant. The internet is American. No one told you?

    14. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Us europeans will stop pretending Spotify is available everywhere when all the americans realize that those of us over here can't download TV shows through the iTunes store and that Hulu blocks access as well (well, there are always US iTunes accounts and proxies but it's a serious PITA).

      The BBC blocks us as well. I wanted to watch Whites the other day and it wouldn't let me since my IP originates from the U.S.

    15. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately I suspect that due to contractual limitations the content available to international viewers will only be a subset of that available to british ones.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    16. Re:Spotify Not Available to Me by luk3Z · · Score: 0

      Java based apps are so slow imho. FrostWire or Azureus - I don't use them...

      --
      Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
  10. file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    chop off its head, and ten grow back

    the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet. since that's not going to happen, and because you would need more money controlling and monitoring traffic (effectively) than any money you profit off of media, guess what: game over

    simple economics 101 have spoken: filesharing is here to stay, and the only thing that will die is distributors who make money off of distributing content. boo hoo

    economics is about supply and demand. the internet is disruptive media. it is disruptive, because it changes the basic technology, and therefore the basic economics, of media distribution: one teenager in 2010 has more global reach and distribution power than bertelsmann, time warner, sony, etc., in 1985

    so when the cost associated with supply = $0, demand follows to that natural economically determined price point, and no other price is possible. you can't enforce a marketplace form a dead technological era on us

    people will still make money off of music, movies, etc.: ancillary real world revenues. like concerts, like cinema houses. avatar is the most profitable movie ever made... all in movie houses. concerts reap millions for artists. but DVDs, CDs... it's all going away. artistry is not dying, only the useless middleman. do not weep for him and do not believe his trollish pronouncements about hurting the artist. sure it will take time, and the death throes will be mighty, but the writing is on the wall. game over

    there is nothing for you to do, dear old school media distributors, save one thing: just hurry up and die already

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet

      Even that is not really true; consider this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_n_Edie's

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by Captain+Murdock · · Score: 0

      OVER 16+ GIGS!!!!

    3. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by dwandy · · Score: 1

      because you would need more money controlling and monitoring traffic (effectively) than any money you profit off of media

      Tho I agree with your post the problem is that they won't be spending their own money to monitor the 'net. They have already co-opted law enforcement to go after digital pirates and they want the ISPs to bear the cost of monitoring.
      So ultimately all these costs of monitoring and enforcement are then born by us, but the profits remain theirs.

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    4. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by underqualified · · Score: 1

      you can't beat the internet.

    5. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by icebraining · · Score: 1

      the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet.

      Not really, no. They just need to block incoming connections to every consumer, requiring every connection to pass through a server (datacenters would be allowed to have incoming connections), which would be easier to track and kill.

      Sure, a few services like Skype would die too, but most of the Web wouldn't really be affected.

      This is already happening in part, with ISPs natting clients en mass.

    6. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by Sir+Cypher · · Score: 1

      file sharing is the hydra of geek legend

      FTFY

    7. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so when the cost associated with supply = $0

      Not quite true. There is a cost associated with supply, which is development. Music doesn't spawn out of some nexus on its own, after all. Someone has to write the lyrics and score the music. That takes time, and time can be quantified monetarily. Granted, the creation only has to be done once for each piece of music.. That means the cost can potentially spread out over millions of files. It's just that it will never quite equal 0.

    8. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      musicians make music because they love music. they do it for that reward alone. any money beyond that fact is just icing on the cake. no one goes into music saying "i have to generate a positive net cash flow in the third quarter." no one writes songs like that, well, no songs you want to listen to anyways. maybe some say "i'm going to write music to impress chicks and get in their pants", but again, that's not money. ego, fame, charisma: that's what makes music. removing money from the equation changes nothing. maybe makes it better

      besides, even if you did look at music as only a financial spreadsheet, you are not thinking like a true capitalist. you are thinking like a communist: that we are COERCED to pay for the development of music up front, regardless of quality. a true capitalist says "i think this is a good spot to invest in a restaurant" or "i think we should shovel money into developing this business avenue". risk... and reward. sometimes in capitalism you take risk and there is no reward, you lose money. but there is no such thing as "pay up to support this, you are forced to."

      likewise with music: you invest in making a song, and MAYBE someday later you get money for the effort. no guarantee. heck, there was no guarantee before the internet: there were always starving artists, and always will be. you give your songs out for free. if they are liked, you make money touring. THAT'S the new world. and its the same as the old world, before the mid1800s, when corporatism (not capitalism) made music an enforced payment affair

      regardless, you are simply putting out the standard middleman distributor troll that filesharing hurts artists. no, it only hurts middleman distributors. fuck them. there will always be music, most of them will be starving artists, as they always have been, and a few will find fame and fortune touring or advertising, same as it always has been. the only thing that changes, is the middleman dies. good riddance

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    9. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir, I know many artists. Some of them have pursued a degree at a university, some have not. Some have been very successful for themselves, some have not. That's life, you don't always get what you want, even if you put in every bit of effort you have. I'm simply pointing out there is some non-zero monetary value to their art. It is no where near what the record labels want the public to believe, but it's there. After all, musicians and other artists practice their craft for their love for the craft, but you can't live on love alone. Trust me, the artists I know who didn't make it big know have learned that lesson well. At some point, you've got to get some level of compensation equivalent to the work. Not neccessarily more to any degree, but equivalent.

    10. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      so when the cost associated with supply = $0, demand follows to that natural economically determined price point, and no other price is possible

      The problem is, the cost to supply isn't zero. Somebody paid for the instruments, equipment, studio time, etc... etc... That someone usually insists on being paid back - so the natural price point is nonzero.
       
      Nor is the cost to distribute (what you confuse with the cost to supply) zero. Servers, connectivity, bandwidth, it all costs money. So again, that cost is non zero. (Minuscule on a per song basic, but still non zero.)

    11. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright, now that you're finished with your rosy idealism goggles, it's time to realize that a lot of musicians do create music to make money. Take KISS for example. Every song was for making profit.

    12. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet"

      I have no doubt that right now a lot of very powerful people are trying to work out how to destroy the internet as it exists today, and reform it into something more favorable to making a profit.

    13. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What if the cost is non-zero, but small enough that producers are willing to pay it themselves and take their reward in the form of personal satisfaction and some measure of fame?

    14. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      musicians make music because they love music. they do it for that reward alone. any money beyond that fact is just icing on the cake. no one goes into music saying "i have to generate a positive net cash flow in the third quarter." no one writes songs like that, well, no songs you want to listen to anyways. maybe some say "i'm going to write music to impress chicks and get in their pants", but again, that's not money. ego, fame, charisma: that's what makes music. removing money from the equation changes nothing. maybe makes it better

      I've got some bad news for you... there are quite a lot out there who're only in it for the money... we call them "breadheads"...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    15. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      and they made profit

      from touring

      and i think KISS was more motivated to get into chick's pants

      which they did, a HELL of a lot

      and which any future KISS will too, even if you told them it would only be losing money to make music, there will still be future KISSes, simply on the amount of sex they get

      there is no guarantee that you get money from music. but it is pretty much 100% guaranteed that you will get women. chicks love the musicians. even the ugly asocial nasty ones. so that's all the motivation you need: sex. money is not the only prime motivator in play here

      and for every KISS, there are 100,000 wannabe KISSes that are starving, and always were, and always will be. being an artist is always like, and always will be like, buying a lottery ticket with low odds

      that's not idealism. that's reality. idealism is what you are saying: that just because you try to make music you are somehow guaranteed money. bullshit

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    16. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then how do you explain Brittney Spears?

    17. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

      then they are idiots, because the internet as it exists today is the most lucrative money making machine ever in existence, precisely because no one controls it

      the illusion that control leads to more prosperity is an old illusion that we all have suffered very mightily from many different times throughout history

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    18. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      100% correct

      and thank you for saying what i am saying better, by saying it a heck of lot less verbose ;-)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    19. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by luther349 · · Score: 1

      agreed. every time they go after a protocol a new monster takes it place. killed Napster and genutella took its place. infect gntutella with garbage bittorrent replaced it. try the same to bittorrent and now 90% of your turrets are encrypted. and theirs even super encrypted genutella style clients still in very early testing. lets not forget all those privet only sites and even old school irc and ftp. and sites like rapidshare. point is killing Napster spawned all this i can only imagion what people will come up with with limewires death even tho it was only a genutella client and theirs like 50 of those.

    20. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by luther349 · · Score: 1

      i disagree. your rappers get into music for the money. most of them anyways. theirs a few that where so outside the box they didn't care icp marshal manders heck even vallna ice. i say that being even when ice fell out of being popular he kept making music. im sure theirs other artiest that dont care but most of them simply are in it for the money at least in the hip hop scene. now most of your indy rock bands composers etc dont care if they ever get ritch.

    21. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      I find it presumptuous that you would pretend to know the motivations behind my intentions as an artist. I just got off of tour a couple of weeks ago. Your idea of what touring is completely fabricated fantasy. All property rights is rooted in Intellectual Property, by the way.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    22. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by fritish · · Score: 1

      I'd mod up this AC.

      I know many artists too. Many of them do try to market themselves. Shit, how else are they supposed to let others know about their work? They go around looking for exhibit halls/venues/galleries/theaters/bars/whatever that will show their work/play their music.

      Of course they love what they do. They also love to have an apartment and eat food. So they need to get paid. They aren't looking to make millions, they are just looking to make ends meet and maybe have some spending money they can set aside.

      Seriously, they get into it because they love it, they can only seriously continue full-time because they get paid.

      --
      "Coffee is for closers."
    23. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      musicians make music because they love music. they do it for that reward alone. any money beyond that fact is just icing on the cake. no one goes into music saying "i have to generate a positive net cash flow in the third quarter." no one writes songs like that, well, no songs you want to listen to anyways...

      I seem to remember an interview someplace with the members of Kiss where they said they did it to make money and bag babes.
      Oh wait you are talking about musicians and making music. So sorry... nevermind.

    24. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by lopaka1998 · · Score: 1

      You are ignorant of the fact that they are the ones who store the master copies, and maintain / restore them. I don't like the Riaa/Mpaa much like most anyone else here. But we need them if nothing more than to keep the media in a few centralized locations where they can be maintained properly. Without this system, our master media will eventually disappear. With time, distributed media - cd's, dvd's, etc will become rare - to the point some titles no longer exist. Our mp3 copies or avi files will eventually become corrupt or become really bad quality (copies of copies, etc). The original master media will degrade to a point it's no longer watchable. And there won't be a central pool anymore to inject new copies of the media into the system. They are overpricing things and should be ashamed for suing everyone. But at the same time, should this file sharing continue, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot when the riaa/mpaa go out of business. It's sad - but we need them.

    25. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by L3370 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I spend money making 1000 widgets expecting to sell out completely, that's my decision as the producer/investor. Whether I find customers who want to buy those 1000 widgets is a different story. If I don't sell enough widgets to break even, I lose money on a BAD investment

      The customer couldn't care any less what the supply cost is. They only care about the price--and will only buy if that price is within a range they are willing to pay.

      If a musician spends money making music, fine. If they fail to sell because they can't find a buyer, they too have made a BAD investment. Bad investors don't deserve reward or compensation. This market is overly saturated with musicians (or should I say...bad investors,)so if you want to make money you better be the best damn musician out there.

    26. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by yeshuawatso · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. The middle man will just change rolls. For instance, instead of someone fronting the artist for food money to keep them alive, paying for studio time, and printing CDs, the artist takes on most of the cost (food, studio,etc.) and the middle man distributes to the end users. Apple is a great example of a very profitable middle man. They pay for server space, bandwidth, and processing fees to charge the consumer (and tying a music player doesn't hurt). The current middle man is just trying to protect the business model of NOT paying the artist but still receiving the money. A case of this is the distributors selling CDs wholesale for $5-6 each and giving the artist $0.2-0.10 a piece and claiming the contribution margin was so low they couldn't get anything even though the royalty per disc was negotiated at signing in binary form in the small print.

      Sure an artist can play both roles, as they could by printing their own CDs a decade ago, but the music changes to profit margins and viable business models instead of music people enjoy. But an artist shouldn't focus on what strategic model they should implement for success; leave that to someone else who's core competency is business and you focus on making music you feel good about. But it's naive to think the middle man is going any where. People can't be experts in everything.

    27. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      As a practical matter the people that need to be involved (including the main artist) need to generate enough $ to make it livable, even if it's something they like to do.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    28. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      that is, evne if they like to do it, they still would take financial considerations into account to an extent.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    29. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      People often like doing things they're not particularly good at. :P
      It's the businessmen who enable it, spread it far and wide.

      And yes, there are some people out there who really honestly dislike The Beatles et al and really honestly like Britney et al (and some intersection between those two groups)

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    30. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      yes, and there is such a thing as a day job. That's what pays the rent and bills.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    31. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please retake first grade and relearn how to write a sentence. Maybe you were stoned the first time.

    32. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by blarkon · · Score: 1

      What gives you the right to tell all musicians why they make music?

    33. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by blarkon · · Score: 1

      The guy is a troll. Hasn't made any art in his life yet presumes to tell artists why they make art. Apparently if you don't do it for free, you aren't "philosophically pure" enough for him. Wonder how "philosophically pure" he is when it comes to whatever he does to put food on the table. On the other hand - perhaps circletimessquare simply leeches off welfare because, you know, you shouldn't do anything for profit - only for "love"

    34. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "They just need to block incoming connections to every consumer, requiring every connection to pass through a server"

      Wow, that would be a viable option! Not only would they still need to monitor masses upon masses of connections, but they'd also have to deal with the possibility of encryption and such. There is always a way.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    35. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "There is a cost associated with supply, which is development."

      Which pirates don't pay for. Guess what? Neither do people who simply decide not to buy the product. If either the pirate or the non-pirate had bought the product, these artists would have been better off. Since the only possible conclusion that you can come to is that pirates 'steal' potential profit, non-pirates are just as 'guilty'. Although, I don't really believe that objects that don't exist (potential profit, which only exists in a future that never was) can be stolen, since that goes against basic logic.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    36. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by Hatta · · Score: 1

      That's the problem, it's making lots of money for all the wrong people. Control leads to prosperity, for those in control.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    37. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by icebraining · · Score: 1

      No, you misunderstood. Not one of their servers; it means that anyone who wanted to receive incoming connections would have to put a server in a datacenter, and transfer all client to client data through it. Which would make P2P centralized and hence much easier to kill.

      For them, it would just be a rule in their firewalls. Or simply using NAT like Comcast & etc already do in many cases.

    38. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Digital media *doesn't degrade.* It's perfectly archiveable. The only things you need to forever preserve digital media are a long string of numbers, and a copy of the specification to decode them.

    39. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I suspect then that people would migrate to alternatives for their pirating needs, whatever those alternatives may be.

      I sure know that I wouldn't want to have to put a server in a datacenter merely to receive incoming connections. Wouldn't that pretty much stop me from creating game servers hosted on my home connection and using programs that, for whatever reason, want to receive incoming connections? I realize that you're not saying that you support this, but I really don't think that this is something that they would ever attempt.

      This is just like with DRM. DRM that is so invasive and annoying that it actually manages to somewhat stop piracy will inherently be annoying, invasive, and harmful to the consumer as well.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    40. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by exomondo · · Score: 1

      and the only thing that will die is distributors who make money off of distributing content. boo hoo

      They don't have to though. The Recording and Motion picture industries tried to ignore the internet because they had a good and very profitable system as it was. The internet made it easy and convenient for consumers to get the content that they wanted when they wanted it, however the RIAA/MPAA members weren't interested in satisfying their customers with an efficient supply chain that could potentially cut into their profits so they ignored it, that ignorance gave rise to the only way to get this sort of media over the internet, piracy, the RIAA/MPAA figure they could just sue the users and that would stop it but once that ball started rolling it was too late. If the RIAA/MPAA had some foresight and built something like iTunes in the beginning I doubt piracy would be as rampant as it is.

      TBH I used to pirate movies and music because it was the only convenient way to get them, why make may all the way to a physical shop to get digital media? It's not the right thing to do, though most of the time I bought the album/dvd when it was convenient - which is how i've amassed such a large collection. Though these days I have foxtel (with heaps of on-demand content) and XBox Live for movies and TV, then iTunes with DRM-free (mostly) music/movies/TV. There really isn't a reason to pirate stuff now that these services are so convenient.

    41. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that pretty much stop me from creating game servers hosted on my home connection and using programs that, for whatever reason, want to receive incoming connections? I realize that you're not saying that you support this, but I really don't think that this is something that they would ever attempt.

      Yes. And it was proven that such restriction is irrelevant.

      Some people will be annoyed. Most won't care. It breaks down to how much are the content producers willing to pay ISPs to do it, or lobby to enforce it.

      This is just like with DRM. DRM that is so invasive and annoying that it actually manages to somewhat stop piracy will inherently be annoying, invasive, and harmful to the consumer as well.

      Yes, absolutely.

    42. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "Some people will be annoyed. Most won't care."

      Somehow I doubt this. A game is one thing, but this is no little restriction. Even people who have no idea what they are doing will likely be affected by this (when trying to use certain software), and there will be no escape from it, unlike a game. The people who play that game can always play another game later, but you can't just use another version of the internet. I highly doubt that they could ever get away with this.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    43. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by lopaka1998 · · Score: 1

      Not really... Everything man-made degrades over time. All media degrades over time - digital or not. We can make archives and backups - but most people on their own won't do that. Or if they do they will to so in a non exact 1:1 way which will result in a less than perfect copy. In time without the riaa/mpaa, permanent movie and music loss (over time) is inevitable. In addition, I'd like to point out that it's not a string of numbers alone. Most music and movie masters are still on analog tape. As for consumer copies, which are mainly digital today, it's not numbers alone. It's hexadecimal code which are 0-9 and A-F. Also it's not always recorded in this hex code - I know cd's are recorded in eight to fourteen modulation instead of hexadecimal. I stand by my statement. Yours is flawed. Your statement requires people to care enough to make backups and most don't.

    44. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot.

    45. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      The point was actually about the existence of Rusty n Edie's in the first place: filesharing without the Internet.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    46. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by alexo · · Score: 1

      you give your songs out for free. if they are liked, you make money touring. THAT'S the new world.

      What about a person who composes the greatest music and writes the greatest lyrics but can't perform worth crap? Is there no place for him (or her) in your new world?

    47. Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend by lopaka1998 · · Score: 1

      The feeling is mutual. Keep in mind though I had the restraint not to say it. You didn't.

  11. You'd think they would have learned by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This sort of evolutionary jump is precisely what happened when they sued Napster. These people must think that there is some sort of upper bound on technological development, and that if they keep suing, eventually file sharing will die.

    Of course, these are the people who tried to block FM radio, so I guess I should not be too surprised.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:You'd think they would have learned by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, but if you take the example you gave... look at where FM is right now: full of rules and copyright laws. You can't just setup a radio transmitter and start giving any music you want to your listeners. So IMHO they kinda won that battle.

      --
      ics
    2. Re:You'd think they would have learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      napster? talk about when they closed down suprnova... all the main sites now started as mirrors the hour after it was closed and are now all full fledged torrent sites that aren't tied together anymore

      these record people are just complete morons and should be address the laws and regulations and now individuals because together we're clearly bigger and better

      the record companies would have made more money buying ISPs rather than targeting individuals and paying crook lawyers with no ethics

    3. Re:You'd think they would have learned by hitmark · · Score: 1
      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    4. Re:You'd think they would have learned by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      You can't just setup a radio transmitter and start giving any music you want to your listeners.

      I disagree:
      http://www.mobileblackbox.com/
      http://www.circuitstoday.com/2-km-fm-transmitter
      http://transmitters.tripod.com/begin.htm

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    5. Re:You'd think they would have learned by stumblingblock · · Score: 1

      You assume the enforcers want p2p to die. If that happened, they'd have to find a job. They see their job as fighting brush fires, ensuring lifelong employment. The actual money behind them is ill-informed, and are kept that way.

    6. Re:You'd think they would have learned by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      FM has an inherent technological requirement for regulation: If two stations broadcast at once in proximity, neither one is useable. More advanced communications methods are not bound by the conflicts of electromagnetic radiation.

    7. Re:You'd think they would have learned by Sirusjr · · Score: 1

      FM radio also sounds like shit. The audio quality is so terrible it isn't worth it even if they played good music.

    8. Re:You'd think they would have learned by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      If you get good signal and your tuner is not part of your cell phone, you should get a good quality audio, at least comparable to highest quality MP3 (most popular format on the internet).

  12. Sweet! by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    Virus-ridden music files are now free again!

    1. Re:Sweet! by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      Only if you're an abject moron that downloads my_heart_will_go_on.mp3.exe

    2. Re:Sweet! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's just .mp3 for the common p2p malware.
      This may seem odd - an MP3 cannot hold executable code. And this is indeed true, an MP3 cannot hold malware. A WMA file, on the other hand, can - it can be included in the DRM section, or made to launch a browser to a malicious site. By default, windows associates both .mp3 and .wma extensions with windows media player. Which tells files apart by magic bytes, not extension. So the sucker downloads an mp3 file off gnutella, double clicks it, WMP opens, correctly identifies it as a WMA file and... hello, malware!

    3. Re:Sweet! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Oh, it shouldn't really need saying, but... using any player other than WMP renders you immune to all such malware. Microsoft is the only company so stupid they would make a media player that runs scripting in audio files.

    4. Re:Sweet! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      A well formed MP3 file cannot execute code when played on a well coded MP3 player. There's nothing in principle that would stop a deliberately corrupted MP3 file from overflowing a buffer in a buggy MP3 player and injecting code. Such exploits exist for data only formats like JPG.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  13. Blame proprietary software by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hm let's see...proprietary...proprietary...proprietary...I think we can see what the problem is here.

    Proprietary software is designed to keep people divided like this.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Blame proprietary software by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Mostly to pander the old divided world that technically came into being thanks to differences in tech choices, but that the industry later learned to harness for economic gains (staggered movie releases, anyone?). High speed net connections (especially flat rate and always on, allowing many2one p2p transfers) have thrown a very big wrench into this, and what we are seeing is the trashing of a dying animal (lawsuits, more draconian laws and more). This as at least one nation appears to have bet the national economy on the "IP" market staying the same forever.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    2. Re:Blame proprietary software by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Geographic restrictions aren't really a software issue. IIRC amazon mp3 for example has geographic restrictions yet doesn't need any special client software at all.

      Geographic restrictions on digital content come primerally from the fact that media is generally licensed on a per-country basis. To follow the terms of their licenses from the content providers the service must enforce geographical restrictions.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  14. can an infinite number of monkeys spell "infinite" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    can an infinite number of monkeys spell "infinite" correctly?

  15. Oh, Yeah in America, We Get Everyone's TV Shows by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    Us europeans will stop pretending Spotify is available everywhere when all the americans realize that those of us over here can't download TV shows through the iTunes store and that Hulu blocks access as well (well, there are always US iTunes accounts and proxies but it's a serious PITA).

    This gets modded informative? Some guy bitching offtopic that he can't get his American TV shows when he lives in Europe? On a thread about LimeWire?

    What, do I have access to all of Great Britain's television shows? Do I have access to all the programming in Spain or Sweden? Do you think, for some reason, that because we're Americans we have everything over here? Heads up, we're supposed to be the idiots!

    Why is it when distribution contracts prevent you from enjoying something over Hulu, you only think about it in one direction? You think I enjoy that I can't find subtitled Anime on Hulu? Or the latest offerings of British comedy? A bit self centered for you to only consider that you're not being subjected to American Television, wouldn't you say?

    And then, when I point out that Spotify is only in parts of Europe, somehow you're justified in accusing all Americans as unable to 'realize that those of us over here can't download TV shows through the iTunes store.' Oh well, let me assure you that I know your situation all too well. And I'm pretty much at the mercy of Adult Swim to bring me The Mighty Boosh and FLCL -- and I'm lucky enough to know of their existence!

    You want to switch? You know what's popular over here is twice as shitty as anything that Europe could possibly produce. You want The Jersey Shore over there? Hmmm? You want to trade some television shows? I'd really really like to do that.

    I'm not stupid enough to say "us Americans will" like you seemed to be able to do with all of Europe but trust me, I suffer too from these distribution deals and lack thereof. Normally I just play the part of the ignorant drunk pompous American prick but it's hard to do when posts like yours are labeled "informative."

    On behalf of America, on behalf of our lawyers, on behalf of your inability to access our TV shows, I apologize. Do you really think that every American is scheming to keep our precious reality TV from your eyes? Or that none of us realize what specifically is going on? I significant portion of the population understands distribution of copyrighted material with the advent of the internet. We're not all morons over here.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Oh, Yeah in America, We Get Everyone's TV Shows by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do you really think that every American is scheming to keep our precious reality TV from your eyes?

      Hmmm? We're not? We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little Europeans. Wicked, tricksy, false!

  16. Needs the obligatory Firefly comment by AskFirefly · · Score: 1

    From Serenity: "Can't stop the signal."

    --
    I'm not a human, but I play one on T.V.
    1. Re:Needs the obligatory Firefly comment by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

      That would be "I'm a lime on a wire, see how i seed".

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:Needs the obligatory Firefly comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe that ended well.

    3. Re:Needs the obligatory Firefly comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He killed me with a court order Mal, how weird is that?"

  17. piratical monkeys? by zarmanto · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't that be "...a horde of piratical code monkeys..."?

    1. Re:piratical monkeys? by gregthebunny · · Score: 1

      No no... real monkey pirates, in cute little pirate hats.

  18. Source code will be available too :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems to be their new website: http://metapirate.webs.com/

    And this forum post mentions publishing their source under the GPL: http://metapirate.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/3713405-where-is-the-source-code-

  19. Re:Cut off the money by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    The difference here is, someone was making money selling LimeWire to people for the purpose of downloading music. Now there's no one benefitting financially.

    It's the difference between making a copy of a CD for your friend, and making a copy of a CD and selling it to someone. The latter is what most people think of as actual copyright related piracy (as opposed to boat-related piracy). Selling copied, fake, or otherwise unauthorized goods.

    Keep in mind, when Microsoft talks about cracking down on piracy, it usually means the people who buy a single copy of Windows and make money selling Windows to other people, usually for way less than the market price. They aren't worried about the people who don't pay, they are worried about people who are willing to pay the wrong people.

    Similar situation here. People are willing to pay LimeWire for the software instead of spend that money towards buying legitimately. We can start an argument about how it should be a strong message that they should change their business model - resurrect any article on the music industry and it's all been hashed out, that's not my point. My point is it's not about the lessons they didn't learn with Napster. It's about stopping someone from making money selling a product whose primary purpose is to infringe. Regardless of whether it should be illegal, it happens to be illegal to do that in the places LimeWire was operating.

  20. I think it would be the Publishers' Guild of Ameri by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.. does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys, or just the practice of giving monkeys keyboards?

    I think the "*IAA" in this case is the Publishers' Guild of America, but I don't know. (I don't live in the USA, FWIW.)

    [Also, starting a sentence in the subject and continuing it in the body annoys some people. Also also, it's `infin/i/te' and `/S/hakespe/are/'. JTYMLTK]

  21. Arise O'le Lime by ovette_pta · · Score: 1

    Have been using LimeWire way back its a good source of songs that are very very hard to find, and its also a good source of virus as well. Good thing I'm using Linux while doing this.

    I haven't been using this for quiet a very long time, I'm not really into music that much anyway, I was kind a sad when it 'died'. But I'm also kind of surprise that somebody's taken it over again! After the battle LimeWire went through. It's going to be another chasing game.

    We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia. Visit http://www.pathtoasia.com/jobs for details.

  22. all this pataphysics makes my head hurt, I think. by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    are piratical monkeys mortal enemies of robotic ninjas ?!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  23. Re:obligatory Obi-Wan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  24. Re:I think it would be the Publishers' Guild of Am by Combatso · · Score: 1

    I don't worry about annoying people. However thank you for the markup, I will make those corrections before submitting my final draft.

  25. Re:can an infinite number of monkeys spell "infini by Combatso · · Score: 4, Funny

    atleast one can

  26. Re:obligatory Obi-Wan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn! Beat me to it.

  27. yeah, pirates use stupid names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, I'm not sure how true this is for other people, but for me, most files in torrents have an abhorrent naming convention, and just going into my giant default "Bittorrent Downloads" directory doesn't work well. Most stuff I'm going to rename and move to a more organized directory structure within a few days of download.

    Not rename and move, but: move to a new name+location and then softlink. That way I get my own cleaned-up directory structure and names (jamu.py compatible), but still have the crappy structure somewhere else where it can seed from. Another advantage to this approach is that my incoming filesystem is always going to be horrifically fragmented (because each file arrives in random order), so I just let it happen, use a non-extant filesystem like ext3 for that one, and when I do the copy, it goes to a nice clean super-high-performance extant-based one like JFS (XFS or ext4 would be ok too) all-at-once.

    1. Re:yeah, pirates use stupid names by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      I'd often reseed with better names and metadata rather than make a second copy or go through that procedure. (is that procedure even feasible on Windows XP?) Better organization for the next user of the torrent.

      Sometimes it's uploader laziness (or a jumbled collection that they understandably don't want to organize), sometimes it's a tagging system you don't like, sometimes it's an uploader group engaged in the seemingly-juvenile practice of plastering their group's name all over the place.
      It's analogous to open source - if you want to improve upon it, you have the practical/technical ability to do so. :)

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  28. Frostwire Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using Frostwire on my linux box for years, I didn't encounter any issues after the courts shut down Limewire. I really don't understand why this is a big deal, considering the Frostwire project did this same things in preparation for a lawsuit/paywall. This Limewire Pirate Edition is the same thing, except they formed after the fact, so they don't seem to be too forward-thinking.

  29. And its been replaced by??? by br00tus · · Score: 3, Informative
    Limewire is written in Java, meaning it is portable. Limewire can download via a Bittorrent mesh of pieces, and it can also download via a Gnutella mesh of pieces, with Gnutella often able to use Tigertree hashes. So you have the best of both worlds.

    I don't see what has come out that surpasses Limewire. Bittorrent is dependent on a web page for searching for files and for finding peers. DHT and Peer Exchange help in this somewhat. Bittorrent is also dependent on web pages in searching for files. Tribler, Cubit and Torrent Exchange are attempts to solve this, but nothing has come out that deals with this, while it has been OK from day one with Gnutella. Gnutella is fundamentally peer-to-peer and extensible. If something better has replaced Limewire I haven't heard of it.

    1. Re:And its been replaced by??? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "If something better has replaced Limewire I haven't heard of it."

      Frostwire.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  30. wow.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm sorry but limewire can easily be lumped into the vast majority of horrible p2p applications such as kazaa, morpheus, and anything else that came in napster's wake. if you take the quality of your files even just a little serious, then you would know to avoid limewire like the plague. i can't believe anyone, even the totally disgusting public p2p scene, would care.

    1. Re:wow.. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Convenience. Enter search, get file. That, and there was once a time when kazaa etc were the leading technology of p2p - a revolutionary new idea, never before seen, and hugely successful. Newer technology has vastly improved upon them, but some users always remained loyal.

  31. Either/or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with that saying is that you do not need both an infinite amount of time AND an infinite number of monkeys.

    Either an infinite amount of time OR an infinite number of monkeys will do just fine. That is the nature of infinity.

    1. Re:Either/or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. A single monkey and an infinite amount of time will produce a broken typewriter and probably (in about 20 years) a dead monkey.

  32. Re:I think it would be the Publishers' Guild of Am by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't worry about annoying people.

    Quite all right, we just won't worry about reading what you write. Cheers!

  33. Obligatory Firefly reference contained herein: by kheldan · · Score: 1

    You can't stop the signal, Mal.
    It seems they'll never get this simple concept through their antiquated-business-model brains: People will find a way, even if it means resorting to SneakerNet.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Obligatory Firefly reference contained herein: by VatuLevu · · Score: 0

      You can't stop the signal, Mal. .

      Unless the fan base completely fails to make the movie a success. on topic: why on earth would you use a virus laden limewire that is now manned by pirate monkeys? i can only imagine the sorts of things you'll get from using it now

      --
      Vinaka Jo
    2. Re:Obligatory Firefly reference contained herein: by kheldan · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. The mechanism isn't important, the point is that people will find a way to share files if that's what they want to do. There is no way to completely stop it from happening, not even if we were living in a police state. Look at Cuba, for instance: they have to resort to SneakerNet, and the bandwidth is very low, but they do it.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  34. no, complete bullshit by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    "At some point, you've got to get some level of compensation equivalent to the work. Not neccessarily more to any degree, but equivalent."

    no, never. if YOU decide to become a musician and invest in recording equipment and instruments and slave away hours of your life that is on YOU, not ME. i owe you nothing

    if however, you make that investment, and you get a following, heck even if a local small following, who are willing to pony up for a gig of yours live, or an advertiser wants to use your music on an advert, or whatever, power to you. good for you

    but most artists, always and forever more, will starve. it's the nature of being an artist, because it is so easy to love art and so many want to be an artist. there is no shortage of artists. and so economics of supply and demand: large supply, middling demand means your price point is quite low

    besides, an artist does it for love. and that is just the way it is, and always will be and should be: art for the sake of loving art. your art is your just rewards, and no greater reward exists

    there is nothing that says i have to support you because you wish to write music. you do it on your own time, on your own dime, and you find your own way. if you don't then you have the music you love to keep you company

    and probably a chick or two or hundred

    chicks always love the starving artist. that's the only dependable return on your investment you can ever get: women. you get to do what you love, and you are guaranteed women

    that's the reward you get, and deserve, nothing more. it is complete bullshit that i owe you ANYTHING because YOU chose to become an artist. you may make some money from touring, advertising, etc., you will get in some chick's pants, but you aren't OWED anything from me just because you tried to make some music. that notion is pure bullshit

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:no, complete bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ, I didn't say YOU owed THEM anything. I'm saying THEY have to get SOMETHING to SURVIVE. It is NOT an entitlement, it IS a requirement for survival. Read my post instead of strawmanning my argument. There is a tremendous difference between what I'm saying and what you're assuming I'm saying.

    2. Re:no, complete bullshit by luther349 · · Score: 1

      i guess you forget all the bar band who work for very little if anything. just to get there music out there. yes they hope someone likes them and picks them up but most simply stay bar bands or garage bands or brake up. and all that money they spent on eq well its simply a loss. every singer dreams of getting big but most knoe its simply a dream.

    3. Re:no, complete bullshit by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Are you a musician? You sound like you're just making stuff up and are not a musician. I am and I disagree with most of what you say and the way you say it.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  35. never by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys

    And unemploy their own families? Not likely.

  36. Bootleg vinyl by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I'm reminded of outfits like Trade Mark Of Quality that got concert bootleg tapes pressed to vinyl. That particular company's domain was mainstream classic rock (they got some really good stuff in that genre) instead of hardcore punk, but seems like a similar idea

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  37. The Musical Lottery by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the hit big or miss big imbalance is an interesting challenge. Perhaps a less top-heavy industry would be a good idea.
    I figure the changes in the industry allow more room for middle-class successes, which would smooth out out that curve, even though there will still be big winners and big losers.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:The Musical Lottery by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, the hit big or miss big imbalance is an interesting challenge. Perhaps a less top-heavy industry would be a good idea."

      what the hell are you talking about?

      #1. the reason only a few make it is the nature of fame. it is not dictated by any one, nor does it need correcting. that's just the natural order of things

      #2. less of a top-heavy industry is EXACTLY what we get with the internet and no middleman

      and maybe, come to think of it, you DO get some more financial success without the middleman. the long tail theory:

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

      the theory being, that there is money to be made in tiny niches. so, in a pre-internet world of the 80s, a few assholes in the board room snorting coke off hooker's asses decide on which random band gets manna from heaven and earns money. but in the internet world, with no middleman, everyone has the equal potential to make money. not that they will make BIG money, but they'll make something. the theory is, while in the pre internet world most made $0, in the internet world most will make SOMETHING, maybe a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, maybe a few ten thousand or hundred thousand

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:The Musical Lottery by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      So it's not a challenge, but rather the natural way of things in this new environment?

      I did say there would still be big winners and big losers.

      That's an interesting way to put it, that the new form of the industry will better allow people to fill in the Long Tail.

      One indie CD I ordered (MC Lars/K. Flay - Single and Famous, which I do recommend by the way) came with a printed note that said 'Thank you for supporting independent music. Without you, we'd have normal jobs.' That seems to encapsulate the difference you allude to - something instead of nothing, rather than a lot instead of something

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    3. Re:The Musical Lottery by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      "That seems to encapsulate the difference you allude to - something instead of nothing, rather than a lot instead of something"

      no, more like something instead of nothing, rather than a lot instead of NOTHING. you seem to be making the false assertion that somehow the pre-internet world meant artists made money. no. most artists never make any money, period, in any era, forever. that's just the nature of art: many are called, few are chosen

      that's the difference between the binary on/ off state of the pre-internet music business (contract/ no contract= money or nothing), and the free-for-all internet world of music business (you might get nothing, you might get a pittance, you might get ok money, you might make a lot of money, who knows)

      in the pre-internet era, you might have 100 musicians, 90 of which will get nothing, 10 of which will get good cash. because they were lucky enough to sign a contract

      but in the internet era, you might have 100 musicians, 40 of which will get nothing, 30 of which will get a pittance, 20 of which will get ok cash, 10 of which will get good cash. because there are no contracts. there is no middle man. there is simply the artists, and his or her fans, and the money comes and goes as it pleases. a more direct democratic model of determining artistic quality and how it gets rewarded financially. while the pre-internet world was a sort of command and control authoritarian system where the music exec middlemen determined absolutely everything in terms of "quality" and financial rewarding. no middle man = money flows freely this way and that. its better in my eyes, and more lucrative for the artist, even if less money is in play, because there is no parasitical middle man siphoning off most of the cash regardless

      "So it's not a challenge, but rather the natural way of things in this new environment?"

      no, it's the natural way in any environment, forever, in which only a few get fame and the rest get nothing. this is just the nature of art, not the way of art and business. the pre-internet world and the internet world are the same in this regard

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:The Musical Lottery by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Let me try rephrasing that: a smaller music career versus none, as opposed to a large music career versus a smaller one. I figure the small percentage of big stars will continue to make big money.

      You're right, the industry was/is like an opaque somewhat-arbitrary casino. However, I figure they'll keep chugging along, albeit in some sort of modified form, with the industry changes opening up opportunities for those who didn't win at the casino, which is very valuable for both those musicians and for music listeners for that to be happen.

      Yes, "cut out unnecessary middlemen" is a standard business opportunity.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  38. KISS by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    KISS's stuff is in some ways formulaic rock'n'roll, but then again, it seems to be a good implementation of the formula.
    And their stage show (sizzle to the steak) is kinda a love or hate thing

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  39. Poor English by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    It is amazing how the standard of English grammar and spelling plummets particulary on threads about file-sharing. Appalling that the advocates for freedom are so poor at expressing their/they're/there essentially good ideas!

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
    1. Re:Poor English by Fnord666 · · Score: 1
      On Tuesday November 09 at 03:14PM, oldmac31310 said:

      "It is amazing how the standard of English grammar and spelling plummets particulary on threads about file-sharing. Appalling that the advocates for freedom are so poor at expressing their/they're/there essentially good ideas!"

      Oh, the irony!

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  40. Regarding Music Piracy by exomondo · · Score: 1

    I think one of the biggest issues - the thing that makes piracy so socially acceptable these days - is that in the old days if i bought a vinyl, cassette, CD, etc... I was buying the physical media, and of course paying for the content on it, but the product i received was something i could do what i like with, i could play it wherever i want, loan it to a friend, re-sell it, etc... But with the rise of digital distribution what do we get? What are we paying for? We don't own the music, we don't get a license to use the music, we can't resell it when we no longer want it (because we didn't get a product), we can't loan it to a friend, all we get is a bit of bandwidth on the distribution server. Most people who pirate music would - I assume - be loath to pay for bandwidth on the distribution server when they can get that for free and if they can say to themselves 'i wouldn't have bought it anyway' then they don't see it as stealing because they haven't taken anything from anyone else. Although services like iTunes are convenient, they are still pretty much the same price as you would pay in a store, but you don't get the aforementioned benefits of physical media.

  41. Reminded again why I read slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading the comments on torrentfreak reminds me of http://www.xkcd.com/810/ ... There's a reason there's not much spam here... So I say "mission fucking accomplished"

  42. Limewire Pirate Edition? by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    Seriously? With a name like that, who would use it? Besides the "secret devs", I mean.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.