Slashdot Mirror


Most Torrent Downloaders Are Monitored, Study Finds

derekmead writes "A new study from Birmingham University in the U.K. found that people will likely be monitored within hours of downloading popular torrents by at least one of ten or more major monitoring firms. The team, led by security researcher Tom Chothia, ran software that acted like a BitTorrent client for three years and recorded all of the connections made to it. At SecureComm conference in Padua, Italy this week, the team announced that they found huge monitoring operations tracking downloaders that have been up and running for at least the entirety of their research. According to the team's presentation (PDF), monitors were only regularly detected in Top 100 torrents, while monitoring of more obscure material was more spotty. What's really mysterious is who all of the firms are. Chothia's crew found around 10 different monitoring entities, of which a few were identifiable as security companies, copyright firms, or other torrent researchers. But six entities could not be identified because they were masked through third party hosting. Now, despite firms focusing mostly on just the top few searches out there at any given time, that's still a massive amount of user data to collect and store. Why? Well, if a reverse class-action lawsuit were feasible, those treasure troves of stored data would be extremely valuable."

309 comments

  1. This just in.... by DeTech · · Score: 2

    monitored torrents likely to be monitored... news at 11.

    1. Re:This just in.... by Kimomaru · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's definitely not news, but it's mindblowing how many people are totally indifferent to being tracked. Some of the logic I've heard is, "everyone's doing it, it's like speeding - not much of a chance of getting caught" or just complete indifference. Personally, there haven't really been any movies or music made in the past 15 years that are even worth downloading for free, I'll never understand why people bother wasting drive space.

    2. Re:This just in.... by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is that mindblowing? It's exactly the attitude people have when speeding and just as true.

      And there have been some worthwhile films made in the last 15 years from Hunger (re IRA, not the Hunger Games bullshit) to El Perro.

      And sometimes I like to unwind with bullshit entertainment, not something deep and clever.

      (Although Slashdot's almost as good for that.)

    3. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > there haven't really been any movies or music made in the past 15 years that are even worth downloading for free

      um... either you are deaf & blind, a troll, an idiot, an illiterate barbarian or you have a vintage porn fetish... neither of these validates your point since there are TONS of good movies made every year. They just don't play in your local theatre, but they ARE available as a torrent.

      I would say that torrents are about to save the movie industry. If only independent filmmakers would realize this and skip the whole distribution channel... For instance in Belgium, if you would take the government sponsoring out of the equation, 95% of all movies are a loss. I wish they would simply release torrents and add a nice donation banner at the end of the movie. I would gladly donate (1 euro if it is a shitty movie, 3 if it was okay, 5 or more if it was awesome) !

      there is NO way of doing this legally...

      the most baffling part here is that it is SO FUCKING EASY TO DO ! It takes like 10 minutes to make that banner, and 10 seconds to start a torrent. WTF is stopping them ???????????

    4. Re:This just in.... by Antipater · · Score: 4, Funny

      Personally, there haven't really been any movies or music made in the past 15 years that are even worth downloading for free,

      "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man!"

      Oh wait, that movie's not 15 years old. So you wouldn't get it.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    5. Re:This just in.... by somersault · · Score: 0

      there is NO way of doing this legally..

      Yes there is.. torrents.

      WTF is stopping them ???????????

      Very few people would donate. Watching movies at the cinema is often a poorer experience than watching at home, for various reasons, but it is one way to guarantee that people pay to watch your movie..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:This just in.... by Kimomaru · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing worth stealing, though.

    7. Re:This just in.... by redmid17 · · Score: 0

      I wish I had any mod points to vote you down as a troll

    8. Re:This just in.... by Kimomaru · · Score: 0

      In reading your post, if I were you I would avoid throwing the words "idiot" or "illiterate", and definitely "barbarian". Your mirrors are broken. Second, you will definitely feel different if you end up getting fined or sitting in a cell.

    9. Re:This just in.... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 5, Interesting

      WTF is stopping them ???????????

      I make open source software. I have a donation link on my site and in my app. I have thousands of people using my app every day.

      In an average month, I receive $3 in donations*.

      That's what's stopping them - people love to talk about how they don't really want this stuff for free - they only want to be able to pay a reasonable amount of money to the people who create it. But the majority of these people rarely put their money where their mouth is when actually given the opportunity to do so.

      I realize I'm comparing software and entertainment, but I haven't yet seen anything that tells me people would behave differently. If they're not voluntarily paying for software that helps them do their jobs every day, I don't see the likelihood of paying for a couple hours of one-time entertainment as being very high.

      * Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to profit off of this version of my software and I appreciate even the $1.00 donations. But the data here illustrates my point nicely.

    10. Re:This just in.... by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      >>>monitored torrents likely to be monitored... news at 11.

      "Film at 11" was the old catchphrase used by TV stations. And you're right this is hardly new information, though it is interesting to see HOW much torrents are monitored. After getting caught 3 times I decided to download stuff from a private tracker..... no more problems.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    11. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obviously you're not a golfer.

    12. Re:This just in.... by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, no, it's not worth actually going into someone's cinema/store/house and walking off with a physical copy of the film.

      Downloading is another matter.

      lol@my troll mod. Did I annoy someone in the past who has mod points today or something?

    13. Re:This just in.... by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      :o cpu6502, I thought you were all about restrictive ownership of things.

      Good on you, though.

    14. Re:This just in.... by cpu6502 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>> people love to talk about how they don't really want this stuff for free - they only want to be able to pay a reasonable amount of money to the people who create it. But the majority of these people rarely put their money where their mouth is

      I want it for free.
      There I said it.
      I bet 99% of us are the same. For example I read books for free that are published online. The number of actual books on my kindle that I paid for? Zero? If it costs money I skip over it and read the free stuff instead. Same with software. Why pay for MC Office when I can get OpenOffice free? Why buy a CD when I can hear the music free on youtube? There is simply too much free entertainment/software in the world to ever bother paying for something.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    15. Re:This just in.... by Mr_Silver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, there haven't really been any movies or music made in the past 15 years that are even worth downloading for free, I'll never understand why people bother wasting drive space.

      That old Slashdot chestnut.

      According to IMDb's these are the highest ranked films in their top 250 that were made in the last 15 years and scored 8/10 or higher:

      The Dark Knight (2008), The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003), Fight Club (1999), The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), Inception (2010), The Matrix (1999), City of God (2002), The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002), The Dark Knight Rises (2012), Memento (2000), American History X (1998), Saving Private Ryan (1998), Spirited Away (2001), American Beauty (1999), Toy Story 3 (2010), The Departed (2006), The Pianist (2002), Life Is Beautiful (1997), WALL-E (2008), The Lives of Others (2006), Amelie (2001), Gladiator (2000), The Prestige (2006), The Green Mile (1999), Requiem for a Dream (2000), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), Untouchable (2011), L.A. Confidential (1997), Avengers Assemble (2012), Oldboy (2003), Princess Mononoke (1997), A Separation (2011), Pan's Labyrinth (2006), Downfall (2004), Batman Begins (2005), Inglourious Basterds (2009), Up (2009), Snatch. (2000), Gran Torino (2008), The Big Lebowski (1998), Sin City (2005), No Country for Old Men (2007), Hotel Rwanda (2004), The Sixth Sense (1999), Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998), Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003), The King's Speech (2010), Warrior (2011), The Secret in Their Eyes (2009), Into the Wild (2007), Black Swan (2010), Good Will Hunting (1997), How to Train Your Dragon (2010), Donnie Darko (2001), Finding Nemo (2003), V for Vendetta (2005), Million Dollar Baby (2004), There Will Be Blood (2007), Moonrise Kingdom (2012), The Artist (2011), Amores Perros (2000), The Bourne Ultimatum (2007), Mary and Max (2009), Slumdog Millionaire (2008), Howl's Moving Castle (2004), District 9 (2009), A Beautiful Mind (2001), Ratatouille (2007), Infernal Affairs (2002), The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011), The Truman Show (1998), The Wrestler (2008), Ip Man (2008), Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003), Star Trek (2009), Monsters, Inc. (2001), Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter... and Spring (2003), Mystic River (2003), Shutter Island (2010), Let the Right One In (2008) and Big Fish (2003)

      Are you really trying to say that none of these are worth watching?

      In fact, the only merit to your argument is that all the films that scored higher than 8.8 were made before 1997:

      The Shawshank Redemption (1994), The Godfather (1972), The Godfather: Part II (1974), Pulp Fiction (1994), The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966), 12 Angry Men (1957) and Schindler's List (1993)

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    16. Re:This just in.... by SoupGuru · · Score: 1

      Goddammit, where are my mod points?

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    17. Re:This just in.... by pinkeen · · Score: 1

      I think that your logic is a bit flawed here. If you charged $.50 for every download and it was the price (not a voluntary donation) then the stats would be different.

      IMHO You can't compare free (as in beer) software (whose author accepts donations) to paid (but reasonably) entertainment.

      If you cannot obtain something legally without paying that brings another set of incentives to the table.

    18. Re:This just in.... by blahbooboo · · Score: 1

      Very few people would donate. Watching movies at the cinema is often a poorer experience than watching at home, for various reasons, but it is one way to guarantee that people pay to watch your movie..

      Have to agree on seeing movies in a theater is awful! I went to an IMAX showing of Batman. I loved the screen but the sound was so loud I had a headache by the end of the film -- it was like a rock concert.I really missed my home theater at the end of that movie!

    19. Re:This just in.... by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you absolutely sure that you have thousands of users? Are you sure your donation system is legit? Are you sure you are asking for donations in the right way - visible, polite and proportionate request, etc.?

      I've just finished some vague involvement in a fundraising drive via a raffle thing, i.e. selfish and altruistic components. We raised over $2000 over a few weeks via members on some forum alone. Some people are amazingly generous if you give them a reasonable proposition which accords with their interests. Though I guess it can depend on the culture - some groups pour away their money on things that others would never spend a cent on, even though both groups ostensibly "support" something.

    20. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you charge money for BBSSH? I mean, unfortunatly RIM is in a death spiral. All casual users are jumping ship, only corperate users are really left. You know ones with accounts set up to purchase software. If you are using GPL software then, by all means you have to comply with the license.

    21. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up, Donny!

    22. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have to disagree, I recently attempted to get all my media via the UV service. I figured I'd like to pay for what I want to consume. So I sign up and to my delight find a get a freebie for signing up, peruse the list of feature titles avaiabled and select one.

      At this point I'm told "No, go away, you don't run Windows or OS X so therefor you must be a filthy pirate" - well words to that effect.

      So I contact support asking if there's a way around this; Nope, I must spend even more money on either a Windows or OS X license, neither of which are acceptable to me.

      So here I was ready to spend an average of £300 a month downloading series and films that I've seen over the years and would like to add to my DLNA server I'd setup just for the job, the result of which is don't even bother.

      The media conglomorates wonder why they're hated so much, here I was practically begging to give them my money and they give me the finger.

      I'll simply go without in that case then, I've plenty of other activities to keep me entertained.

    23. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      look at the stats from radiohead releasing their album for donations. They prove your entire update to be inaccurate.

    24. Re:This just in.... by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I occasionally drop 10 bucks on DwarfFortress. But that's because it's unique, there's nothing out there like it and I'm paying to see it keep getting made.

    25. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funny thing, there is a 270GB torrent for this.

    26. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "I don't like it, so nobody else should either"

      Wow, do you seriously, honestly believe yourself, or are you trolling? Because if you actually think like that... holy christ on a cracker, it would certainly suck to have your mindset. I honestly feel sorry for you and pity you.

      Literally and honestly, if I ever meet you in public and somehow recognize you, I will give you a heartfelt handshake and say 'sorry man'.

    27. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't you mean "raping"?

      That comment and your sig are offensive to those people who have gone through the horror of having their copyrights ignored.

    28. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean "raping"?

      Copyright extensions are the holocaust of our day. 17 years and not a day more!

    29. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your data illustrates that your monetization sucks, nothing more.

    30. Re:This just in.... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Ditto here. $100 to clarkesworldmagazine.com because they had ~5 years of audiobooks that I listened to and enjoyed while at work. I figured it helps pay for the bandwidth I used, plus I want to see more audios uploaded in the future (plus it made me an "overlord" of the website).
      So sometimes I spend money.
      Not often.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    31. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I will pay $1 to $10, without much thought for something in the android market.

      I just hit one button, and the payment is done.

      Anything much more than 1-click, becomes work, and it's not even worth bothering, just to pay a few bucks.

      If I have to click a donate button, then get redirected to paypal, then sign in, then verify the amount and from which funding source, then click ok, then get rerouted back, then check later to make sure that the transaction didn't go sideways.

      android market. with all it's downsides, mostly just works.

      build a square, make it attractive, provide a few ammenities, provide a bit of security and stability, and merchants will come, then the buyers.

      you've provided a water fountain, where the drinking is easy, but the paying is an asswhip.

      make the drinking a tad more difficult, and the paying very easy.

      allow users to sample a taste with ease, then make it easy for them to pay for a full helping.

      that's what a good market does.

    32. Re:This just in.... by Cito · · Score: 5, Informative

      it's not stealing, copying there is no theft and it was already ruled by high courts in switzerland that people that pirate wouldn't have paid for it in the first place so there is no sales lost.

      http://torrentfreak.com/swiss-govt-downloading-movies-and-music-will-stay-legal-111202/

      I've pirated and cut cable since 1996 when i started off downloading off passed around FTP servers and Newsgroups.

      I still use newsgroups and torrents nowdays and a Western Digitial WDTV Live plus with a usb wifi adapter plugged in to stream downloaded movies off a shared drive on my lan to my tv.

      I pirate television due to spam, I hate a 30 minute television show is streatched to 1 hour due to commercials every 3 minutes and they play so many commercials they actually have to remind you what you were watching "will be right back with xxx show in a few minutes"

      got fed up with spam in 96 so cut cable and pirated ever since, where I live we have 1 local theater within a 50 mile radius and ticket prices are 13.50 for 1 person, if I take my family that's just over 40 bucks in tickets only plus another 10-20 for popcorn/soda FUCK THAT.

      I pirate movies so I can enjoy them at home with my family on my surround sound (7.1 bluray rips ftw on http://kat.ph/ and can actually save money.

      Why would I pay the same price to buy the movie on Bluray to go see it in a stinky, noisy, stuffy theater? movies are to be enjoyed at home alone or with loved ones, not in a gymnasium full of strangers lip smacking, gorging, laughing, glow of phone texting, etc.

      Movie theaters in the 60, 70's and even 80's were a social experience, people dressed up in suits and ties, women in fancy dresses to go out to the movies, it became a social event almost as going to a church in a way. But the 90's then 2000's came long that made home theater systems as good or better quality than theaters and we now have it how it's supposed to be, movies should be an intimate enjoyment, an escape from reality which is better at home or with loved ones than a gym full of noisy, nasty, strangers.

      so I'll pirate till I die :)

      http://kat.ph/
      http://thepiratebay.se/
      http://h33t.com/
      newsgroups which are free since my ISP offers them freely
      there are still FTP sites floating around as well still used

      fuck spam television and mpaa

      Theater system is dead, Strangers all up in some gymnasium to watch a movie is a dead model. It's time to adapt or die.

    33. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In my country downloading isn't illegal. Distributing/uploading copyrighted material without permission is. So if you're going to torrent non-free stuff in my country, you have to leech in order to be legal.

      You can try to set the upload limits on your client to something really low. I can't seem to set it to zero on my client, but at 1kbps, for some reason even GBs of stuff can end up with 0 bytes of uploads! I'm not sure if something like GreedyTorrent is really necessary, but you can try it. YMMV.

      An alternative is to do the torrenting from a machine in a country where it is legal to do so, then download to your country (assuming it is legal to download in your country).

    34. Re:This just in.... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 0

      It's not a legitimate rape.

    35. Re:This just in.... by rullywowr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cito (1725214), your IP has been logged.

    36. Re:This just in.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to profit off of this version of my software

      If you don't want to profit from it, why is it significant that you don't profit from it?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    37. Re:This just in.... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I will be charging for the BB10 iteration of the software.

      And I plan to release the current version to app world for non-free, though of course source will remain available for download and direct-install binaries will remain available. Just need to find interest in finishing up the legacy code base - it's difficult to spend time on it, when I know I can't use it under BB10.

    38. Re:This just in.... by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      This probably won't work for *all* movies, but GP is talking about some obscure movies that are *loss*. Like, making money by trying to sell them is pointless, why not release it to the public for free? Some people may still like it and some may even donate money.

      May be they are not doing it because with some movies "sue the customer" is the best strategy.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    39. Re:This just in.... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>> there have been some worthwhile films made in the last 15 years from Hunger (re IRA, not the Hunger Games bullshit) to El Perro

      Nothing worth plopping-down $15 for the DVD though. Not even the Star Trek reboot. Out of the hundreds of movies I downloaded these last 2 year, I liked maybe 5% of them, and none that I would want to purchase on DVD to watch again and again. (Oh and the new 3D shades give me headaches... the old red/blue ones never did, but the new ones look blurry/out of focus. Maybe because I wear glasses.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    40. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair that was a fairly shitty movie that only stoners seem to like.

    41. Re:This just in.... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The majority of monitors are also monitored by the community. That's what block lists are for.

      If they can't connect to you, they can't see what you have.

      I know of one maintained block list for "unfriendlies" that has over 200,000 addresses. I have no doubt some are bigger.

    42. Re:This just in.... by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure software and movies/TV are really comparable though.

      When I get music, I usually pay for it, even when it's available for free -- because I want to support the artists, usually there are political implications with the artists (not supporting the RIAA) and the music (more directly) and I want to support those. Plus I know it's good, I know I'll listen to it a lot, and I know they're going to put out more as long as they have the money to.

      When I get TV shows, I usually donate if they're good. It takes a lot of money, they're always asking for donations, and _I need to know how the season ends_.

      With movies...I'll donate if it's really good, to encourage the writer/director to make more.

      With OSS...usually they don't ask for donations. Sometimes there's a donate link, but I've never yet seen one say 'if people donate $X we can add feature Y!' like you get with other forms of entertainment. Never seen 'we need $X or the project will cease to exist!'. And if the project fails...well, I still have the software. I can still use it. It may not be improved, but obviously it already does what I need it for or I wouldn't have it. And if it's open source, someone else may pick up development...or I could try to do so myself.

      Basically, with music/movies/TV shows you get the feeling that _this is their job_, that _this is costing them money_ (props, equipment, etc...) and that _they'll stop if they don't get paid_. With software -- and this may just be a marketing failure in some cases -- the sense I always get is this is something they're doing for fun; they're using equipment they already own and would have bought anyway, and they don't care all that much if they get paid. So while it would be nice to kick in a couple bucks more now and then, it just doesn't feel...important. The feeling I always get is that donations for music go to living expenses of the artists usually; movie/tv donations go to pay actors and equipment and bills; and donations for open source software goes to beer and pizza.

    43. Re:This just in.... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I have about ten users, and I get squat. But I'm not in it for the money. I'm in it because I really needed to repair a truncated Office document after some idiot yanked their USB stick during a save, and having written a program to do just that there was no reason not to release it.

    44. Re:This just in.... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 0

      How did Eternal Sunshine make a top-anything list?

    45. Re:This just in.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why pay for MC Office when I can get OpenOffice free?

      If you mean "MS Office", I use LibreOffice instead because it's better, not because it's free.

      I have zero problem paying for something good. I donate to every non-ad supported website that I regularly use, and many that are ad-supported (like Slashdot). I am fortunate in that I have sufficient disposable income that I can do this.

      However, most people have considerably less disposable income as a percentage of their income than they did 15 years ago. The reason you're seeing more "free" content is because the realization is growing in the corporate world that "Oops, we succeeded in limiting the power of the middle and working class but now they don't have any money to buy our shit." Of course, paying people more is harder than trying to come up with cockamamie "free2play" business models.

      In the 1960s and 1970s, the working and middle classes (here in America) were stronger and richer than they had ever been. People were retiring with money, leaving money to their kids, expecting political power. If you go back to that period and look at the Wall Street Journal editorial pages you will see that this was a growing concern of the people at the top economically. Minorities were becoming more powerful, more prosperous. Women were becoming more powerful, more prosperous. The god-kings of Wall Street didn't want to share space at the table and "supply-side" was invented. To cement the trend, "EZ Credit" was invented, where not only could wealth be diminished, but future wealth, generational wealth could also be diminished.

      Now people don't have money. Credit has dried up. No more money left in the real estate ATM. My guess as to why new game consoles have not come out in the past several years is that there is because Sony and Microsoft's market research has told them people can't afford them in numbers like the original PS3 and Xbox.

      So now the model has changed from the $199 application to the $1.99 "app". The cable TV providers are all looking for other income streams. Today, starting salary for an auto worker, in real dollars, is about $13. In 1978, the starting salary for an auto worker, in 1978 dollars, was about $17. If you adjust for inflation, it would be like a current-day auto worker making about $5/hr. Of course we're going to have to see a lot more of these "innovative" business models.

      We're going to see a lot more changes like this in the marketplace as we move toward a minimum wage society.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    46. Re:This just in.... by KingMotley · · Score: 0

      OK, so you don't like the theater. That is fair, I hate most theaters too.

      However, why are you pirating bluray rips, when obviously they are available for purchase. I'm sure you might have a reason other than because it's cheaper, but you didn't give it. Of course cheaper isn't a reason on it's own, otherwise you are condoning stealing because that too is cheaper.

    47. Re:This just in.... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      " I have thousands of people using my app every day... In an average month, I receive $3 in donations... Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to profit off of this version of my software and I appreciate even the $1.00 donations. But the data here illustrates my point nicely.

      No, it doesn't.

      The only way it would illustrate your point at all -- nicely or otherwise -- were if you could demonstrate that people felt it was worth more, but refused to pay more.

      How much do they actually use it once they've got it? How well do they like it? Maybe they really think it's only worth $0.001 per copy. How would we know?

    48. Re:This just in.... by sgtrock · · Score: 2
      While I personally appreciate you giving your software away, there are plenty of others who have figured out a way to release entertainment over the Internet and make money at it. For example, the Humble Bundle guys are still making money hand over fist releasing entertainment that is DRM-free, and with no set price. A recent blog posting about the last bundle stated:

      ...What we have found is rather interesting: Android users are actually pretty generous, to the tune of a $7.43 average purchase price. This puts Android users well-above Windows ($5.73) slightly above Mac ($7.02), but below the still mighty Linux ($9.92).

      This runs directly against the chorus of posts branding Android users as cheap pessimists and disproportionally resistant to spend money on apps when compared to other platforms, especially when it comes to games.

    49. Re:This just in.... by KingMotley · · Score: 2, Informative

      I did the whole donation thing too -- although back in the day, we called it shareware. Fully functional software that you were supposed to buy if you continued to use it beyond a certain point (usually 30-45 days).

      I think it was the point that after a hundred thousand downloads, and getting *3* checks was a bit of a turn off. Or when a guy at a computer gathering told me about this awesome software, and offered to make me a copy for free... OF MY OWN SOFTWARE. Of course, he'd been using it for a year every day and thought it was the best thing ever, but he wasn't one of the 2 checks I got. His was the 3rd after I he realized who I was.

      I realized then either I needed to write software that was less user friendly and needed more support, or I needed to change tactics.

    50. Re:This just in.... by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Can anyone provide data for a non mainstream artist actually making a significant amount of money off a "pay what you want/donate" campaign? Not a kickstarter type of campaign, with specific prizes for different funding levels. But an ongoing "here is a bucket, take my art for free, pay what you want" campaign.

    51. Re:This just in.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I was pretty disappointed by the Star Trek reboot to be honest. The "red matter" BS, the villain was pretty ridiculous, the plot didn't make that much sense (somehow the villain comes from the future with this advanced mining ship, but then the Klingons are able to grab him and keep him in prison, but then somehow he escapes and gets his old ship back? WTF?), destroying Vulcan (using that stupid "red matter"), etc. Even the bit about Chekov not being able to talk to the computer was silly; they haven't improved voice-recognition algorithms by that time to deal with some people's accents? Or just let him speak in his native language?

    52. Re:This just in.... by ebh · · Score: 1

      Movie theaters in the 60, 70's and even 80's were a social experience, people dressed up in suits and ties, women in fancy dresses to go out to the movies

      Really? Not in the 60's 70's and 80's that I lived in. What was different was that people were better behaved. But the only time you dressed up was to impress your date.

    53. Re:This just in.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 3

      Yep, they frequently have the sound turned up way too loud.

      Then add in screaming kids, sticky floors, crappy seats that don't let you get closer to your date, horrifically overpriced and crappy food/drinks, and insane ticket prices (you can buy a Blu-Ray for less than a single ticket), and you have to wonder why anyone even bothers with the theater any more. I will note however, that the budget cinemas ("dollar theaters", though the one here is $3 I think) are a much better deal, since the price is so much lower.

    54. Re:This just in.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't know about your app in particular, but for open-source applications, one way to make money is to get people to pay you for improvements. Get something out there that becomes popular, and then put up a section on your website where people can make feature requests. List the feature requests that have been made, let people vote on them. Then put in a way to get people to donate for these improvements, maybe with a "donation meter" the way many charities do. Set a price on each feature (based on how long it'll take you to implement it) and show how much has been donated towards that feature. When you get enough money, release the feature.

    55. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go troll somewhere else.

    56. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've seen, most software developers insist on PayPal. Fuck that. Never again.

    57. Re:This just in.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      That doesn't prove anything, it only proves that one well-known band is able to make a lot of money by asking for donations. Radiohead is far more well-known and popular than some ssh app for Blackberries. Heck, Blackberries themselves are going out of style pretty quickly, and among BB users, how many do you think want an ssh app? Secondly, it's different markets. The people that listen to RH music aren't necessarily representative of the population in general. How successful would some country artist be if they did the same thing? Or someone like Britney Spears? Or some totally unknown band, or a local band? It's cool that RH had such success, but without that model being tried by more musicians, and in other markets too (movies, books, software), you can't draw any conclusions from it.

    58. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know which open source software this is, but most of it even if there is a donation button tend to do very little in the way of making me feel like I should be paying. The donation button is hidden, and they really want me to use it for free, so I do. If it was incentivized more, I would be willing to pay, but other than good will it's almost like they don't want my money.

    59. Re:This just in.... by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? Not in the 60's 70's and 80's that I lived in. What was different was that people were better behaved.

      If where you lived was anything like where I lived, part of that was because the movie theatres had a guard walking around, and if you were disruptive, he shone a torch in your face and the second time told you to leave. If you were really obnoxious, they would snap a photo of you and ban you for a year.
      These days, they don't want to pay that guy's salary, and don't really care what kind of experience you have. The main thing is to be able to sell overpriced popcorn and soda.

    60. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word "Yes" at the very end. It was more-correct about the nature of Love than anything Hollywood has produced since the beginning. It had more to do with the nature of Love than anything Shakespeare wrote. I, myself, didn't care much for the movie until that very last line.

      Love isn't about conquering outside interferences and getting the girl. That's a crush. That's romanticism, mixed with a character arc. Love is about seeing someone, warts and all, coming up with everything you can't stand about them, confronting the fact that they drive you absolutely crazy, and then flushing that away with a much more powerful, fiating "I can't live without you." -- not in a sense of desperation, rather a sense of overwhelming unity -- the acceptance of your integral half. It's not as pretty, and it's abused all-too-often, but it's what drives the majority of real, actual people.

    61. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Radiohead proves it to be TRUE! Radiohead did that "pay what you want" thing once and went back to "pay us 12 bucks for a digital download" after that. If Radiohead REALLY had so much success with the "pay what you want" model then why did they never do it again? Because they made significantly less when everyone paid a dollar or whatever. In software the developer Image-Line used to debut new synths with a "pay what it's worth to you" price for the first month as a promo...they don't do that anymore because everyone paid the minimum (which was $9 on a normaly $100 item) so I'm sorry but "pay what you want" really has never worked. Face it, most pirates are full of shit and just make excuses for stealing just like every douchebag in jail for larceny has an excuse too. And don't give me that "it's not stealing because it's digital and they didn't lose anything" because with that thinking ripping off the federal government for SS payments shouldn't be a crime since money is just digital and they "can create more with the press of a button".

    62. Re:This just in.... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      otherwise you are condoning stealing because that too is cheaper.

      Stealing also removes a copy from the owner. In the likely event that this is an undesirable outcome, it's highly likely that no one is condoning stealing even if it appears that price is their main concern.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    63. Re:This just in.... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Of course cheaper isn't a reason on it's own, otherwise you are condoning stealing because that too is cheaper.

      Ignoratio elenchi and stupid at that.

      --
      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:This just in.... by overmoderated · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nothing worth stealing, though.

      We are sorry. Because your IP is not a US IP, you cannot view or purchase this content. You will have to wait for a year or so before this shit is available in your country at 3 times the price or more. We like to fuck you in the ass as much as possible. Well, if you're asking me, they are inducing people to donwload illegally. I and many users would love to pay a fair price and download a legal HQ copy of my favorite show, only I have to use a VPN connection to watch certain content in the US, like Hulu, or purchase certain items that I like. It seems that borders even exist on the Internet. Soon you'll need a green card just to connect to an American server. It's disgusting what they are up to. So fuck all trackers and attack or DDoS the shit out of them. I want them off my Internet.

    65. Re:This just in.... by der_pinchy · · Score: 0

      what was the software? some old amiga stuff?

    66. Re:This just in.... by overmoderated · · Score: 1

      Don't mind the troll mod. This site has been Slashtroll since 2002.

    67. Re:This just in.... by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Just like everything else did. People who liked the movie rated it, apparently, well.

    68. Re:This just in.... by wallsg · · Score: 2

      Eight-year-olds, Dude.

    69. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think cpu's got a fucking girlfriend. Hey everyone! Look at cpu6502 and point and laugh!

      At least cpu's not a gaffet like the rest of the fucking lot here.

    70. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for helping encourage all the patent wars and mass-suing of the end user, bandiwdth caps and monitoring. Your "I want it for free" has brought it to this. Why should anyone produce anything and put their hard work into it for you to 'have' without a second thought. *You* are what is wrong with the world today - not a 'chance to evolve an industry'. You want it free - go ahead. When you finally can't get it or when you get busted for having it, there will be plenty of us to chuckle at you when you are paying the price financially or in a cell.

      No one has perfected how to stop you from stealing - but that doesn't mean you aren't doing it. Maybe you will never get caught by any authority...but there is plenty of karma to catch up with you. :-)

    71. Re:This just in.... by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      Same here. 140 total, by now. Even though it's not supported by the makers, I treat almost all software that way-... download it, see if it's something I enjoy using... if so, I buy it. If not, I delete it or just let it gather virtual cobwebs.

      So basically.. the only people who lose money on me are the people trying to get me to pay for software that's not all it's cracked up to be. And if it's bad software for too high a price anyway, perhaps they should be losing money on it. I think the last thing I bought on pure faith was Skyrim, but that just kind of convinced me not to do so anymore. Not as good as Morrowind.

    72. Re:This just in.... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      On the other hand - that's the Humble Bundle. They have but to put up a banner saying "SOON" with a countdown on their site and half the IT blogs, IT news websites, gaming websites and, yes, Slashdot scatters around writing article after article about it.

      How well have indie games in general been doing outside of the Humble Bundle?

      I do see F2P being used more and more - especially in mobile device gaming (can't even reasonably get past the 4th level unless farming levels 1-3 for points OR, you know, spend $1.99 to get a whole bunch of points (which will be insufficient come level 8) immediately), but I don't think that approach works with OP's software (check his website).

    73. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's interesting is that models that act like a normal store but hit a price point that people are willing to pay make money. I used AllOfMp3.com back in the day and it was magnificent - the quality was good and the price was commensurate. If more businesses stopped gouging then I'd be happier and, most likely, so would the artists. It's the pointy haired who are hurting...and bringing little value.

    74. Re:This just in.... by symbolset · · Score: 1

      If you're the kind of person who would rather pirate than pay, content owners aren't going to get your money ever anyway. They can't prevent their content from being available to you. That's no reason for them to unreasonably restrain the bulk of us who just want a square deal and are willing to pay for content from enjoying it in the manner and on the device we find best suits us. We would like to pay them money. They are being foolish by refusing to take our money.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    75. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or when a guy at a computer gathering told me about this awesome software, and offered to make me a copy for free... OF MY OWN SOFTWARE.

      YEAH! How very DARE him attempt to share the software you released under a "shareware" license! Oh, wait...

      Protip: If you can't count on people's generosity/honesty to get you a pay-check, then DON'T. If you DO count on people's generosity/honesty to get you some money then don't expect to be flooded with money, just because you made something that could be useful. Also, don't paint as a douchebag everyone who downloaded/used your software without giving you a check, since you were the one _actively encouraging_ people to download, use and share your software without paying you for it.

      You're assuming everyone has disposable income and also has an appropriate way to send it your way: that's a big assumption. Also, you're assuming everyone who downloaded, used it, and everyone who used it, liked it enough to think they should reward you with a donation.

      Seriously... this is the first time I saw someone who releases "shareware" to be pissed when he sees people sharing his stuff. Wasn't that the whole point, to begin with?

      Also, why do you think you had "hundreds of thousands of downloads"? Hint: it was because it's free.

      tl;dr: DONATIONS ARE NOT PAYMENT. IF YOU WANT PAYMENT, REQUEST IT BEFORE DELIVERING GOODS. DON'T BE SURPRISED WHEN PEOPLE DON'T PAY YOU, WHEN YOU WERE THE ONE GIVING AWAY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT REQUESTING PAYMENT.

    76. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, with the reported amount of piracy...all of them seem to be operating on a 'pirate my art for free, pay what you want' methodology.

    77. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out here in India we also log timber.

      If your ass gets logged, believe me, it is not as benign as your IP being logged.

    78. Re:This just in.... by vlueboy · · Score: 2

      Seriously... this is the first time I saw someone who releases "shareware" to be pissed when he sees people sharing his stuff. Wasn't that the whole point, to begin with?

      Ugh. People don't know what they say when posting Anonymous on the internet. The "share" portion is as loosely tied to real-life term as "down" and "up" are tied to files "loading" in the world wide web... even more loosely, in fact. Shareware died due to oversharing: it was superseded by a mix of BBS fade-out, online piracy thanks to stolen keys, and the porting of mature FOSS software to the world of windows.

      DON'T BE SURPRISED WHEN PEOPLE DON'T PAY YOU, WHEN YOU WERE THE ONE GIVING AWAY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT REQUESTING PAYMENT.

      ASK is another word for REQUEST. Donating is only different from Paying in that the software isn't built around a security model enforcing it. He's not surprised, he's just disappointed that the proverbial "out of the kindness of their hearts" is working from his magic coding fingers out, to thousands of individuals who receive real benefit using the software. Then the numbers game that you expect bankers have proved true with their percentages models shows that this "kindness" trickles from a potential 100% of x thousands to a meager tenth or hundredth of a single percent...

      Another key factor killing shareware was all the nagging. Jimmy Wales asks for donations every year for Wikipedia. If he paywalled it by going full New-York-Times-style on users, I'm sure the net effect on traffic, earnings and seekers of alternatives would be severe. There's no trusted alternative to wikipedia, and google has a big part in keeping us continually stumbling upon his site when a simple dictionary definition site would have sufficed.

    79. Re:This just in.... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Also, don't paint as a douchebag everyone who downloaded/used your software without giving you a check, since you were the one _actively encouraging_ people to download, use and share your software without paying you for it.

      Perhaps you misunderstand what was generally meant by "shareware" back then. The term is (or was) generally used to mean software that was offered on a trial basis with the understanding that if you continued to use it- or found it useful- you should pay whatever the author was asking for.

      In other words, the terms that the software was offered under was that you could distribute copies to your friends, but you were still *meant* to pay up if you continued using the software. I can't remember the exact wording of all the different shareware, but I think that it ranged from what would have been a legal (but hard to enforce) requirement that you should pay if you continued using the software to one that wasn't as legally strict, but still made clear that the intention was you pay a "donation".

      Actual "gratis" software *was* out there back then (which wasn't usually "Free" in the RMS sense), but would normally have been called "freeware", not "shareware". Had he offered it as "freeware" with a "please consider donating" thing, that would have been closer to what you describe. However, the fact that the GP called his "shareware" suggests that it was offered under the first model.

      One might argue that it was stupid to *rely* on people's honesty under a shareware model, but that doesn't change the fact that lots of people were (I assume) using it knowing the deal offered, and not abiding by the terms offered (moral at least, legal at most). Whether you agree or not, he's not a hypocrite in finding that douchey.

      Of course, he's not entitled to expect everyone that shared the software or tried it out to register and pay up- only the people that continued using it, being aware of the legal and/or moral obligation they were under. But I get the impression that was a far higher number than the people who actually did pay.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    80. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming that IMDb's rankings are an objective standard. Consider that most movies are released in a blaze of expensive publicity. Now consider that, for most movies released in the last 15 years, that blaze of publicity (and the resulting reviews) occurred while IMDb was active and accepting ratings.

      I don't actually agree with the GP - I think there's been some good cinema in the last decade. But I don't think that you can use IMDb as a reliable comparison of the merits of older and more recent movies.

    81. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, pirating a copy instead of buying one takes money out of peoples pocket. I suppose you are ok with pickpocketing as long as you put the empty wallet back?

    82. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your problem with your open source donation system is that you don't set goals. If you have a goal of $20 per month in donations then you need to explicitly state that and provide a live counter that shows the current donations.

      Relying on random contributions doesn't work.

    83. Re:This just in.... by KingMotley · · Score: 0

      Trying to change the subject is for those that understand that their position is weak. Please continue.

      BTW, where do you park your car? Because well, cars are just too expensive, and I probably wouldn't pay what you paid for yours. It is likely a piece of crap, but I feel entitled to it anyhow, but it is just not worth what you would sell it for. Don't worry, I'm not taking anything, because you'll get the value back (most of it anyhow) from your insurance eventually.

      Your reasoning is weak, face it.

    84. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was pretty disappointed by the Star Trek reboot to be honest. The "red matter" BS, the villain was pretty ridiculous, the plot didn't make that much sense (somehow the villain comes from the future with this advanced mining ship, but then the Klingons are able to grab him and keep him in prison, but then somehow he escapes and gets his old ship back? WTF?), destroying Vulcan (using that stupid "red matter"), etc. Even the bit about Chekov not being able to talk to the computer was silly; they haven't improved voice-recognition algorithms by that time to deal with some people's accents? Or just let him speak in his native language?

      What part about him being stuck in prison by klingons, that doesn't happen....

    85. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was the point that after a hundred thousand downloads, and getting *3* checks was a bit of a turn off.

      I got a registration rate of over 5% for my shareware, almost all of them for the most expensive site+source license.

      May be you and your software are the problem, not the downloaders. If people download something and find out it's not as advertised they sure as hell aren't going to pay a dime. Too many egotistical programmers think the've written something useful when it's actually yet another virtually useless timesink with little to no net value and possibly even negative value.

    86. Re:This just in.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's from a deleted scene. From memory-alpha.org:

      "A deleted scene from the film establishes that the Narada was crippled after it was rammed by the Kelvin. A convoy of Klingon warbirds eventually arrived and captured the ship and its crew. Twenty five years later, Nero and his crew escaped from their imprisonment on Rura Penthe, reclaimed the Narada, used the ship to destroy 47 Klingon warbirds, and continued on their mission."

    87. Re:This just in.... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      As many of the reply pointed out, shareware isn't/wasn't freeware, nor public domain software. I've written both. As to how I know that there were literally hundreds of thousands of downloads, and how many were actually in use long over the 30-day trial period, that differs depending on which one. One was easy because it was used online (An implementation -- the *ONLY* implementation) of the Ymodem-G protocol for the client, and BBSs, compuserve, etc gathered statistics on which file transfer protocols were used. It's amazing when you see 90% of all file transfers, amounting to tens of millions of downloads being done with Ymodem-G across the nation, and there is only one program that does it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a statistician to realize it's more than 3 people, or 30, or even 300. Of course, I also saw how many times it was actually downloaded as well, but as you suggest, that doesn't really tell how many people were using it regularly.

      Others I couldn't gather hard numbers on, but I would see it at *EVERY* computer conference/gathering I went to, I saw many many people demoing it to others. Only once did I even bother to mention that I wrote it (see above), but only after the guy went on to brag about how long he'd been using it and how great it was.

      Protip: Using "Protip" makes you sound like an 8 year one who reads game review magazines like it was a religion. Or a meme. Or both.

    88. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can they tell a particular comcast (for example) IP is used by a "monitor" as opposed to by a normal user? Do they correlate DMCA notices with logs? And even then by the time the DMCA notice is received surely the "monitor" would have intentionally obtained a new address, so how does this work at all?

    89. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > wouldn't have paid for it in the first place so there is no sales lost.

      I read this argument all the time.
      While you wouldn't pay for it doesn't mean that it is then ok to enjoy it for no money.

    90. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paypal. Not even once. ;)

    91. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are either 720p with lots of compression, probably dvd isos (yuck), or multi file divx encodes.

      DO. NOT. WANT.

    92. Re:This just in.... by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Donations are optional so you can't really complain when people don't take that option.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    93. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is quality. I choose to buy MS Office because I want the best.

      That's not to say OpenOffice isn't worthy, I used it for years. But MS Office is just superior.

    94. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After that year long dry spell while Toady was gutting world entities to prepare for civ interactions, I would have given my left nut for a new build. I ended up only forking over 80 bucks but that still seems pretty decent.

      I think donation business models only work for some industries. If you are trying to make it in the music or movie business, chances are very slim, even if you are one of the more successful among your competitors. The target audience involved is less inclined to give back much. But if your audience is more connected with you personally, or if they are of a monied demographic, or have a stake in your success, donations may work well. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons why some industries are successful, but I bet this reason is a big one.

    95. Re:This just in.... by mdielmann · · Score: 2

      ...Snatch. (2000)...

      I never saw this in the theatre, and I'm kind of curious to watch it, but whenever I do a web search, damned if I can find a torrent.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    96. Re:This just in.... by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      Tastelessly, these are pretty minor compared to the problems some cinemagoers had recently with their Batman screening.

      On the volume, I recall complaining to the cinema about the piercing sound at the last Harry Potter film. I thought, man I'm getting old, but I play in a rock band and listen primarily to black metal. If they can annoy my ears then it legitimately is too loud.

    97. Re:This just in.... by TheP4st · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why are you pirating bluray rips, when obviously they are available for purchase. I'm sure you might have a reason other than because it's cheaper, but you didn't give it.

      One very good reason in my opinion is this this

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    98. Re:This just in.... by lxs · · Score: 1

      I don't see how failing to put money in someones pocket is the same as taking money out of someone's pocket.

    99. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the copyright infringer decides whether it's okay for them. Why wouldn't they think so? Because authors have artificial monopolies that infringe upon other people's real property rights and promote censorship? Wake up. No one cares about copyright; no matter what you say, you will lose.

    100. Re:This just in.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Find another cinema. My local one has all sorts wonderful features. Cheap screenings on certain days ($10 is the norm), reasonable food and drink (except for alcohol which is expensive), it's small so there's very few if any kids, the floors aren't sticky (though I wouldn't say clean), and best of all couples seats with no armrests.

      I actually go to the movies a lot more now than I used to. No longer do I need to arrive half an hour early, get in line, sit through previews. I order tickets online, I pick my own seat, then I show up 15 minutes after the movie has started, they scan my receipt from my mobile and hand me a ticket, and I walk in just in time for previews to end.

      Not all experiences are necessarily bad though we do have local cinemas which sound just like yours too. I would shop around.

    101. Re:This just in.... by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      This is still pretty relevant, although todays shareware is free (but ad-supported) apps and apps you buy. You can use the free version (often with less features) but you'll get nagged by stupid ads all the time (and they cost you money if you pay for bandwidth) and there's usually a built-in option to buy the full version, In the old days you'd usually get either added features or nag screens removed if you registered and bought the full version.

      Back in the day I wrote shareware like many others. It was pure shareware, i.e. "share this freely with your friends!" and there was no 'enhanced' paid version. I called it postcardware (inspired by 'beerware' - if we ever meet, buy me a beer) and asked only to receive a postcard if you liked the program. As this only cost people very little, a lot actually 'registered' and I got perhaps 200-300 postcards over a couple of years.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    102. Re:This just in.... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Income has risen significantly since 1960, for all income ranges. Adjusted for inflation.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

    103. Re:This just in.... by RaceProUK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pirated copy != lost sale

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    104. Re:This just in.... by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      Why buy a CD when I can hear the music free on youtube?

      Notwithstanding that I'm just a slashdot number posting randomly on the intertubes, but I have recently bought 5 CDs precidely because of what I saw free on YouTube.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    105. Re:This just in.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. Income has risen significantly since 1960, for all income ranges. Adjusted for inflation.

      First, that's family income, because we now have to have so many two income households with husband and wife working and all the associated problems and costs.

      Second, when you say "adjusted for inflation" that is a number that is heavily weighted for technology but not for food, energy, etc. It's a basket of consumer prices that is designed to make inflation look low. You won't see this number measured against the CPI or PPI.

      Third, the "income" number measures only wages. True income has to also include benefits, which have eroded enormously in the past 30 years. If you are making $30,000 year but have a fixed pension program and then start making $32,000/yr but no pension program, you would show on that little chart as going up, when you're really going down.

      Fourth, even though federal income taxes have been steadily declining over the past 30 years, local taxes have shot through the roof. The portion a middle or working class income that goes to taxes is much higher than it was 30 years ago,

      There is no question that incomes across the middle and lower class have been declining. People have been losing ground since Reagan.

      By the way, ShakaUVM, I haven't seen you around much lately. I figured you had hurt yourself in an abortion clinic bombing or something. I'm glad to see you're back to let your far-right freak flag fly.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    106. Re:This just in.... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I'm not complaining - I didn't make it for money so any donation is bonus - I'm just pointing out the fact that when it's optional - as ggp suggests- it's not the route to profit that he seems to think it to be.

    107. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a fair answer, although there are ways of not being forced into those forced commercials too. It would be nice if you could pay an extra $2 and not have to have that on your blurays.

    108. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem. You are allowed to copy my car any time you like.

    109. Re:This just in.... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Do you even understand what I said? Non-sequitur.

      --
      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...
    110. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we do this at concerts? I mean, it's forbidden to talk at a movie that is playing six times a day in a dozen theaters across the city, will be out on DVD in two months, and rerun over and over on cable next year. Yet people get pissed off if you tell them to shut up at a concert that is totally unique and wont ever be shown on TV.

    111. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can argue about the "legal" definition of stealing all you want, but most parents teach their children that taking something that does not belong to you is stealing. Are you a child or are you a responsible adult?

      Downloading copyrighted content from unauthorized sources is stealing and it is unethical, when you attempt to justify your actions, you are only lying to yourself. Jurors in court dont agree with your justifications, the laws dont agree with your justifications and judges dont agree with your justifications.

    112. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like an immature brat. You dont like the manner in which content is provided, rather than just not consuming, you decide to consume the content on your terms, completely ignoring the wishes of those who create and supply the content.

      I dont care if there are legal loopholes or safety nets, you are what is wrong with this self-centered society. You dont have a right to that content with or without spam. It does not matter if you would have bought it or not, it is not yours to take. And yes, to any layperson, it is stealing. Just because the "legal" definition is different doesn't mean it isn't stealing on an ethical/moral basis.

    113. Re:This just in.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's not much choice where I am; almost all the cinemas are either AMC or Harkins. The only exception I'm aware of is a small independent "dollar" theater where the tickets are $3 (cash only), and it has some other nice features like a bunch of life-size mannequins of various movie characters (Darth Vader, the Blues Brothers, etc.) and some classic arcade games. Since it's small, it doesn't seem to have many kids either. The main disadvantage is the selection: only second-run movies, and only certain ones, which is to be expected given the type of cinema it is. We also have a couple of "art cinemas", but they're also run by Harkins, the local mega-chain, so they're not too much different except that the types of movies they show there naturally bring in a different type of crowd.

    114. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wait until it appears on TV. is this "piracy" too, as it for sure involves a 'lost sale'?

    115. Re:This just in.... by wcgOtt · · Score: 1

      If and when we go to the theatre, it's usually for a blockbuster action or animated film the entire family would enjoy. We go to our local AMC before noon on weekends. The admission is $6/person and we rarely buy the popcorn (might as well eat bacon fat :) ). That's a price point I can deal with. The whole business model and release cycle for movies and music is broken and the industry is too slow to react. I've even seen more progressive types in the industry post to /. and reddit on just how archaic the thinking is at the top.

    116. Re:This just in.... by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      I just wait until it appears on TV. is this "piracy" too, as it for sure involves a 'lost sale'?

      The list of things wrong with this argument is longer than the extended version of 'War and Peace'.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    117. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there haven't really been any movies or music made in the past 15 years that are even worth downloading for free

      Shut up, go sit in the corner and listen to your Beatles albums, you pompous fool.

    118. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your reply, when you mentioned that "adjusted for inflation: is heavily weighted for technology... Although I agree with you, up here in Canada, any attempt "adjust" would fall flat on i's rear end, since the current minimum wage here (which covers 25 -30% of all the wage earners here) only earn enough from that to pay their rent. Period.. Assuming that the $400 PM deducted for all sorts of reasons, such as tax, medical, IE contibutions, etc, from the monthly 1600 a month wage at 10$ per hour, leaves $1200.. That is the average cost of a one bedroom apartment rental here in Vancouver and Victoria

    119. Re:This just in.... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      most interesting opinion :-)

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    120. Re:This just in.... by CSMoran · · Score: 2

      You can argue about the "legal" definition of stealing all you want, but most parents teach their children that taking something that does not belong to you is stealing.

      Yes, but that kind of taking involves the other party not having it anymore. This is more of a grey area, is it not?

      Are you a child or are you a responsible adult?

      In this argument I can only be an adult if I agree with you, right?

      Downloading copyrighted content from unauthorized sources is stealing

      or so you say.

      and it is unethical,

      or so you say.

      when you attempt to justify your actions, you are only lying to yourself.

      In this case, or does this hold in general?

      Jurors in court dont agree with your justifications, the laws dont agree with your justifications and judges dont agree with your justifications.

      You mean the laws are unambigous and identical all around the world regarding this issue? That's some serious news!

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    121. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not matter if content is tangible or not, nor if you are depriving the person you copied it from. You are in fact depriving the content owner of their ability control distribution.

      If the person who created the content does not wish it to be distributed to you in the manner in which you choose to take it, then you are clearly violating their wishes. I dont think there is any way to justify violating the desires of content owners for your own personal consumption.

      Just because a specific country's law may not be defined in a way that covers every downloading scenario, the fact remains that you are selfishly taking in a manner that deprives the content owner of control of their creation. This is why it is stealing on a moral/ethical ground. You dont have to agree with me about ethics, but you do have to agree that you are telling content owners that their wishes are meaningless to you. You are saying that your dignity to honor their wishes is less important than the cost of a movie rental.

    122. Re:This just in.... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >By the way, ShakaUVM, I haven't seen you around much lately. I figured you had hurt yourself in an abortion clinic bombing or something. I'm glad to see you're back to let your far-right freak flag fly.

      I missed you, too, ratty. But since I'm a moderate, that means that you, by comparison, must have fallen off the deep end of the left-wing pool. But we knew that already, didn't we?

      >Fourth, even though federal income taxes have been steadily declining over the past 30 years, local taxes have shot through the roof. The portion a middle or working class income that goes to taxes is much higher than it was 30 years ago,

      Poor people have paid less in income taxes every year since the 1940s. The bottom 50% of America makes 13% of the wages, but pays only 2% of the nation's income taxes. The actual tax rate paid by the median household peaked in 75 (at 12%), and is about half that level now (6%).

      If you look at disposable income measures, Americans today have more disposable income than they did back in the 1960s.

      Basically, we're better off now than we were 50 years ago, and it drives ideologues like you crazy trying to explain it away, because reality doesn't match your beliefs.

    123. Re:This just in.... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Only 2% of Americans and 5% of Canadians make the minimum wage, and most of those are youngsters working part time to supplement their income.

    124. Re:This just in.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Poor people have paid less in income taxes every year since the 1940s

      Everybody has paid steadily less income taxes, pal.

      The bottom 50% of America makes 13% of the wages, but pays only 2% of the nation's income taxes.

      Do you have any idea what the actual median income is today? How big a share of the treasury do you think people making less than $50k should pay?

      Do you know how big a portion corporations pay? As a share of total revenues, it's about 1/3 of what it was in 1950, about 7%. And that's with record corporate profits. You think they're paying their share?

      When you look at distribution of wealth in this country, having the bottom half of earners paying 2% of all revenues is actually really high.

      Now you can go back to your Birch Society meeting. I hear they're showing a pirated copy of Atlas Shrugged tonight.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    125. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey this is all way off-topic. I just want to know if some bastard is spying on me when I use torrents.

    126. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black Swan is included!!!. That was the worst film I have seen in the last 20 years. The real problem is that very few good films are being made by Americans. That is not to say they can't make them, they just are not because there is more money to be made by catering to adolescent youths who want action hero dramas and puerile superheroes. The best films are still coming from Scandinavia and Australia.

      Now who is spying on my torrenting?

    127. Re:This just in.... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Do you know how big a portion corporations pay? As a share of total revenues, it's about 1/3 of what it was in 1950, about 7%. And that's with record corporate profits. You think they're paying their share? When you look at distribution of wealth in this country, having the bottom half of earners paying 2% of all revenues is actually really high.

      Using the uber rich as an excuse to tax the upper middle class / small-biz segment of society is one of two things: Sleazy or naive/stupid.

      If Obama wants to "punish millionaires" or "level the playing field", he shouldn't draw the line in the sand at ~200-250k income. There's a good chunk of people who are raging because they're struggling to reach the upper echelons and Obama is making it even harder

      http://smallbiztrends.com/2010/11/how-much-money-do-small-business-owners-make.html

      "In fact, in four industry sectors - utilities, manufacturing, mining and management of companies - the average Sub Chapter S Corporation is making its owner rich by President Obama's standards, generating more than $250,000 in income in 2007."

    128. Re:This just in.... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Yep. If the history of the AMT is anything to go by, all Americans will be "rich" in a couple decades.

    129. Re:This just in.... by dargaud · · Score: 1
      I'm in the same situation, and have had a donation box on my site since 1996. People used to give regularly at the begining, but I think the last donation was 3 years ago. I think one of the reasons is that there's no easy way to do that. It's paypal, but then you need to create an account, give a lot of info, your bank account, etc. Or use the Amazon box which required a customer account and no longer even exist.

      I think the web missed a crucial step: integrating standardized micropayments in the browsers themselves. It was debated in the 90s, but nothing came of it. If you had mp3s distributed with a tag that showed up in your music player as a 'donate to this artist' button and then went away once its done, or movies with the same, or even websites, I think the web and music industry would have a different way, maybe not better for the web, but certainly for music.

      But the moment has gone.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    130. Re:This just in.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If Obama wants to "punish millionaires" or "level the playing field", he shouldn't draw the line in the sand at ~200-250k income. There's a good chunk of people who are raging because they're struggling to reach the upper echelons and Obama is making it even harder

      http://smallbiztrends.com/2010/11/how-much-money-do-small-business-owners-make.html [smallbiztrends.com]

      "In fact, in four industry sectors - utilities, manufacturing, mining and management of companies - the average Sub Chapter S Corporation is making its owner rich by President Obama's standards, generating more than $250,000 in income in 2007."

      Do you understand how tax brackets work? If the cut off is $250k, that doesn't mean at $251k you're now paying the higher rate on all of your income.

      Everybody pays the same on the first bracket. You, me, and your boss. If you make $251k, your taxes, under Obama's tax plan will stay exactly the same for the $250k, and you will pay (sit down now) an additional 3% of the additional $1k. So you'll pay an extra $300 on your income of $251,000.00. And let's not forget the difference between "income" and "adjusted income", please. Mitt Romney doesn't forget it for a second.

      "In fact, in four industry sectors - utilities, manufacturing, mining and management of companies - the average Sub Chapter S Corporation is making its owner rich by President Obama's standards, generating more than $250,000 in income in 2007."

      If it's a sub-chapter S corp then they're not paying personal income tax, they're paying corporate income tax, and taxes going up "on the rich" will not affect them.

      If, as your citation says, a subchapter S corp is "generating more than $250,000 in income" that's not the same as "paying it's owner and CEO more than $250,000". In fact, if a corporation is generating $251,000 and its CEO is making "more than $250,000" then there's some shenanigans going on.

      When you cite something, read it carefully. And you need to find the name of whoever wrote that quote, and you need to never, ever believe anything he writes again, because he's trying to fool you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    131. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After getting caught 3 times I decided to download stuff from a private tracker..... no more problems.

      100% Libertarian thief.

    132. Re:This just in.... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Do you understand how tax brackets work? If the cut off is $250k, that doesn't mean at $251k you're now paying the higher rate on all of your income. Everybody pays the same on the first bracket. You, me, and your boss. If you make $251k, your taxes, under Obama's tax plan will stay exactly the same for the $250k, and you will pay (sit down now) an additional 3% of the additional $1k.

      I get it. It's irrelevant. The point is that he's claiming he's not hiking taxes on the working class at all. When in fact, they're at the minimum seeing a small tax hike, possibly a moderate one. Also keep in mind all the other tax incentives are always drawn or cut off at similar levels. PPACA's "3% surcharge" for instance is at the same level. Obama's mortgage deduction is at the same level: http://www.houselogic.com/news/mortgage-interest-deduction/obama-budget-plan-mortgage-interest-deduction/

      The tax benefits are cut off even way lower than that. Making Work Pay chopped off around 150k (http://taxes.about.com/od/deductionscredits/a/making_work_pay.htm). Student loan deductions are a similar incredibly low cutoff.

      When it comes down to it, the people in the upper middle class range get hit the worst in taxes. They get none of the breaks/deductions/credits, and they get hit with all of the nasties intended for billionaires.

      Now, I'm not saying people in that bracket can't afford to pay more taxes, but it's incredibly disingenuous to sell it to the people as a "tax on billionaires" when in fact you're nailing people with far more similarities to the middle class than to Bill Gates. It's also disingenuous to claim the tax hike isn't going to affect any of the working class when that's flat out untrue. Hell, if you're in an affluent field like medicine or law (doctor or lawyer), and you do nothing more than marry someone within your own trade, you're already breaching that income level, ignoring cost of living entirely.

    133. Re:This just in.... by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      >> In the 1960s and 1970s, the working and middle classes (here in America) were stronger and richer than they had ever been.

      Easily fixed: go back to the 90% top tier tax rate we had in the 50s and 60s that created that prosperous middle class.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    134. Re:This just in.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      When it comes down to it, the people in the upper middle class range get hit the worst in taxes. They get none of the breaks/deductions/credits

      Why should there be "breaks/deductions/credits"?

      Again, those people in the "upper middle class" who are making $300,000 would pay exactly the same tax rate on the first $250,000 as anyone else. The increase would only apply to the income OVER $250,000.

      Oh, and "millionaire" does not mean "makes a million dollars a year". It means "is worth a million dollars".

      Right now, the upper few tax brackets' rates are lower than they've been in more than half a century. Can we stop the whining?

      If saying an increase in taxes for income over $250,000 is a "tax on millionaires" is disingenuous, then how much more false is it that the Republicans claim that they're worried about people who are making $255,000/yr and say they're "concerned about the middle class"?

       

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    135. Re:This just in.... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Why should there be "breaks/deductions/credits"?

      For the same reason the incentives are there in the first place, to encourage the behavior. If you want to encourage people to go to school and get an education, why not give everyone the same deductions on school loans? I'm not at all surprised it's hard to find doctors these days. They come out of the school with an average of around 140k+ in debt (http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/the-short-list-grad-school/articles/2012/05/22/10-med-schools-that-lead-to-the-most-debt). Then they get 150k salaries and are treated by the Obama administration as rockefellers when the truth is far different: https://benbrownmd.wordpress.com/

      If saying an increase in taxes for income over $250,000 is a "tax on millionaires" is disingenuous, then how much more false is it that the Republicans claim that they're worried about people who are making $255,000/yr and say they're "concerned about the middle class"?

      I'd say it probably is as disingenuous. However, it's fair to call the 255k the "working class" -- as I've said, those people do have far more in common with the middle class than they do with CEOs and oil tycoons. Heck, what do you even call that kind of salary in New York, or in San Franciso where the median house price is 700k? Hell, someone making 100k in Arkansas is worth a hell of alot more than someone making 200k+ in New York (http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=100000&city1=50501990&city2=53651000), but according to the government, the former deserves all sorts of handouts while the latter deserves to get his/her taxes hiked.

  2. VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I would assume that most people are using VPNs these days, even for casual web surfing. I don't need my IP recorded by cnn.com and yahoo and youtube and google.

    Most good VPNs don't keep logs, or delete logs within 24 hours.

    1. Re:VPNs by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      no, most normal people don't care

    2. Re:VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you really live in quite the bubble if you think MOST people are using VPNs...

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

      You have way too much faith in the general public

    4. Re:VPNs by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 2

      Most good VPNs say they don't keep logs, or say they delete logs within 24 hours.

      FTFY.

    5. Re:VPNs by Karlt1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I would assume that most people are using VPNs these days, even for casual web surfing."

      The skewed perspective of slashdot never ceases to amaze me.

    6. Re:VPNs by OldSport · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For my part I don't really know who to trust. How do I know that PrivateInternetAccess is a legit service, and that they are really doing what they say they do? If I'm going to pay for a VPN service, I definitely want to be sure that they are solid.

    7. Re:VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what is the disadvantage? Why would you NOT want to use one?

      I guess I might see a case for a few real time apps like VOIP or maybe egoshooters. But for web surfing? Who wants their every damn move logged and data mined forever?

    8. Re:VPNs by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      Well, what is the disadvantage

      You have to configure it, and your VPN is not necessarily covered by the laws that cover ISP's. This is good and bad of course, but if your VPN does something illegal and then declares bankruptcy there's not really anything you can do about it, if your ISP does something illegal odds are it's big enough they won't be out of business and you may get some form of restitution.

    9. Re:VPNs by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, what is the disadvantage? Why would you NOT want to use one?

      Because unless you're running your own VPN, there's no proof or guarantee that whoever is running it isn't farming your data anyway, and just lying to you about it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no guarantee that your VPN provider is refraining from mining your data. They promise not to, sure... but the only "good" (read: theoretically inaccessible to DoJ demands) providers are overseas, and they have nothing to fear from any legal recourse available to you, the lowly internet peon.

    11. Re:VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's not a disadvantage. In the event they are, you're no worse off, but you are likely better off. Most of them are probably telling the truth as they have their reputation to consider.

      If you're paranoid, string a few of them together.

    12. Re:VPNs by alen · · Score: 1

      i pay $50 a month for internet. what's the point in paying for a vpn service? what does it get me other than not being blacked out of Yankee and Met's games on MLB TV Premium?

    13. Re:VPNs by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Well other than widespread reputation damage that the few people who DO know the value of VPNs will wholesale stop using THEM....

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    14. Re:VPNs by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Should you care if your VPN goes bankrupt? Just get another one...

    15. Re:VPNs by sir_eccles · · Score: 1

      Are you counting AOL as a VPN?

    16. Re:VPNs by Galestar · · Score: 1

      I know and still don't care. Then again, I live in Canada... we have much different case law re: IP addresses used to identify actual people.

      --
      AccountKiller
    17. Re:VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still being logged and tracked. They're only concerned about how many people are on their page and what other sites they've been on, they don't give two shits about who you are individually. Either way, you're a unique visitor, no matter if your IP comes from a VPN, your ISP or a bot. Giving them a different address doesn't mean they aren't still tracking that. That data mining isn't done for secret government cabals who want to know who you are and what you're doing, it's done for marketers and salespeople who want to identify demographics and trends - that info is no less useful to them through a VPN.

    18. Re:VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, "everybody knows" that "most people" run OpenBSD, surf through a VPN and download on usenet using a combination of couchpotatoe, sabNZBd and a few python/shell scripts to automate it ! Who wouldn't ? even my grandma blablabla..

    19. Re:VPNs by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      A bit of privacy. Some people use it to decrease the chances that they'll receive a copyright notice, too.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    20. Re:VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encryption, compression, obfuscation, and online residency in the country of your choice. (Netflix/Hulu/BBC).

    21. Re:VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For my part I don't really know who to trust. How do I know that PrivateInternetAccess is a legit service, and that they are really doing what they say they do? If I'm going to pay for a VPN service, I definitely want to be sure that they are solid.

      Exactly. Frankly I'd be shocked if there aren't VPN services that are doing just that: Collecting more data for whoever cares.

      I'm not a file sharer but I've been interested in joining a VPN service because it ticks me off to get tailored advertisements. I haven't joined a VPN services because I'm thinking that may just make it worse. Now some company has not just my browsing habits but potentially an email, credit card number, and address (or whatever billing details that are required).

      There are VPN services that allow to mail cash. However, they know you by your IP. Just a few years ago I'd have thought I'm crazy for even thinking like this. But with all the news about companies trumping consumer rights and warrentless searches I really don't know anymore what to think.

      Tangent here, but I think it's the same fundamental problem. Anybody have a brilliant idea?

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

      "I would assume that most people are using VPNs these days, even for casual web surfing."

      The skewed perspective of slashdot never ceases to amaze me.

      It takes 10 lines of code to follow an access through VPN... I thought you guys were supposed to be geeks

    23. Re:VPNs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The VPN would have access to all of your browsing habits, while normally sites only have individual site browsing habits (including ad sites... although those are easy enough to block the majority of).

    24. Re:VPNs by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      In terms of VPN service, no, that's not a problem. In terms of them deciding to sell data on all of your traffic through their service to someone... that's a bit more problematic.

      That 24 hour retention policy, not really a 24 hour retention policy, and really a 24 month sold at auction monthly policy could be real unpleasant.

    25. Re:VPNs by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup. The thing that concerns me as a parent is what the kids might do. I have caught them with sharing software on their PCs and have had to remove it. It is almost impossible to detect at the network level, and I can't go and inspect their PCs daily. I just have to set rules and monitor, but the nature of kids is to not believe their parent who works in IT over their friend who says you can just click on this link to download a bunch of music. They don't really have much to lose either.

      So I just try to monitor as best as I can, and deal with issues when they arise. The average user does NOT understand how torrents even work, let alone how those tracking them operate. A teenager has no concept of what a $10k legal settlement is either.

    26. Re:VPNs by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      For my part I don't really know who to trust. How do I know that PrivateInternetAccess is a legit service, and that they are really doing what they say they do? If I'm going to pay for a VPN service, I definitely want to be sure that they are solid.

      I haven't joined a VPN services because I'm thinking that may just make it worse. Now some company has not just my browsing habits but potentially an email, credit card number, and address (or whatever billing details that are required).

      There are VPN services that allow to mail cash. However, they know you by your IP. Just a few years ago I'd have thought I'm crazy for even thinking like this. But with all the news about companies trumping consumer rights and warrentless searches I really don't know anymore what to think.

      Tangent here, but I think it's the same fundamental problem. Anybody have a brilliant idea?

      Well, not brilliant, but useful :) Did you know that most of the VPN providers will accept PayPal? And did you also know that you can set up a PayPal account using a Visa or Mastercard gift card...that you bought with cash?

      Yes, it's a bit of a hassle, since you'd have to add a new gift card to your faux PP account every so often as the other runs out, but hey, then they don't have anything but your IP to work with, and some throwaway email account. It's some peace of mind, at any rate.

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  3. Which blocklist do you use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I recently donated to bluetack because I was thankful for their blocklist services. still, I use them only because they show up first on a simple "ip blocklist" query on google.
    Which blocklist do you use, and how are you satisfied with their service, and how sure can we be that these 'shady' monitoring services are included/updated on these lists?

    that and, all that blocklistupdating consumes a lot of bandwidth, too.. isn't it feasible to update blocklists via magnet links?

    ciao from a rainy italy

    1. Re:Which blocklist do you use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blocklists are a nice idea, but it seems evidence points to them not really doing much as it's easy to use some other IP number for traps.

    2. Re:Which blocklist do you use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that TPB doesn't provide a VPN and never had anything to do with that. Enjoy your honey trap :)

    3. Re:Which blocklist do you use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The block list would only stop them from connecting to your computer, if all they need to get your IP is simply by looking at the tracker.

      Now if the block list is on the tracker, then that might have protected you.

    4. Re:Which blocklist do you use? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Informative

      Block lists don't work. The lists are overly broad and include a lot of ranges that are clearly not an entity you need to be worried about. Also, it's unlikely that the content holders would do their own research... it's going to be outsourced contractors that clearly would know the value in swapping out IPs.

    5. Re:Which blocklist do you use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is the entire point. If they see your IP, they can't prove anything. Even if they could, it is not illegal to download pirated content, only to distribute it which you clearly aren't doing because your computer is actively refusing a connection with them.

  4. Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Scare tactic away. I'm going to keep downloading.

    I can get a product the media assholes won't give me at ANY PRICE! For free.

    It's not even up for debate anymore. I'm not listening to the media mafia anymore. Wrong? Illegal? Immoral? Stealing from the artists?
    Sure whatever you say fucknuts. I'm going to keep downloading anyway. And teach other people how to as well.

    Go try to convince and have an arguement with someone who still cares. I'm going to do whatever i want.
    Why? Because fuck you thats why.

    And no matter what i do. I'll never be as big of a douche as anyone from the media mafia. Never.

    1. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. You will. You're already far along the path. I guess I am too, for responding.

    2. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You are wrong.

      I have not sued any grandmothers, blind people, deaf people, the dead....

      I have not bribed all the polticians of the world do do my bidding.

      I have not equated piracy with murder.

      I have not collected 'for the artists' and then screwed them over.

      I have not used special accounting math to make the artists owe me money for being blockbuster hits.

      I have not claimed public domain music as my own copyrighted property. And then sued people over it.

      I have not made everyone pay me for ever hearing any media even in passing such as in a bar or restrauant.

      I have not illegally shut down any websites and destroyed anyones business.. Just to say oops. sorry. fuck off.

      I have not infected peoples computers when they buy my media.

      I have not spied on anyone such as in this article.

      I have not used the usa police forces as my own personal lapdog.

      The media mafia and their goons the riaa/mpaa HAVE done all these things. And worse. These are facts.
      These people are scum and actively working aginst a large chunk of humanity to support an obsolete business.
      No... the douchebag path the media assholes are on is very very long. And i will never be light years near them on that path. This is also a fact.

      Fuck them.

      And fuck you for even suggesting it.

    3. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... said the AC.

      On the serious side, there are other ways to support those artists you know and love without pandering to the mafiaa. Go to concerts, buy the shirt/lanyard/coffee mug. The artists will see more of the money than if you flat out got the CD/DVD (unless they published it themselves).

  5. Better products by Wowsers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One day the illegal media cartels might actually get it, that the "pirates" provide a better product. No adverts for other films (Disney is top culprit but there are others), no trailers accusing you of being a crook despite buying a legit DVD / BluRay, no DRM... no regiuon coding, in other words, it just works. The illegal media cartels just p people off with their crappy product.

    The problem is, the politicians in many countries that can sort this out have been bought and paid for by the illegal media cartels, so expect no change to their tactics.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because you dont like them doesnt make them "illegal media cartels"

      But using that term does make you retarded.

    2. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep.. if you don't like the terms the artist provides the content under, you can just do what ever you feel like.

      Like when Linksys used Linux for it's routers, and didn't provide the source code... the FSF went after them for it, and they eventually settled and provided the source.

      And that was their mistake. They should never have settled or provided source. They should have just told the FSF to fuck off. GPL non-compliance makes for a better product!

    3. Re:Better products by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK, you're right. They aren't illegal. That is to say, they aren't illegal under the letter of the law (because they paid a lot of money to help write those laws), they're legal ones that write the laws that they then use to bully, intimidate, and extort individuals to pay them money while ensuring no one can form competition against them.

      They totally are a cartel, though, and a thoroughly scummy one at that.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:Better products by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Expect no change from the public either, as they are too lazy and comfortable to seek out a candidate to vote for. They're too busy voting against the 'wrong' guy. The politicians reflect this perfectly. I couldn't expect anything more from them. Nor should anybody else.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day the illegal media cartels might actually get it, that the "pirates" provide a better product.

      Silly Wowsers, pirates don't provide products, they STEAL money from the mouths of starving... er, um, artists. Yep, artists.

      No adverts for other films (Disney is top culprit but there are others),

      Without "trailers' how are people supposed to know about all the other films they've made?

      no trailers accusing you of being a crook despite buying a legit DVD / BluRay,

      No one is accusing you of being a crook. You guys are so sensitive. You are being advised of your side of the copyright agreement so when, sorry, if you break it they have a leg to stand on.

      no DRM... no regiuon coding,

      Now just how are the distributors supposed to keep people from copying their movies? Without DRM people could do whatever they wanted, and region coding is there to so they can, um, erm, make the films more accessible to fuzzy foreigners.

      in other words, it just works.

      And if you would just buy the newest players and give up trying to run DVDs and BlueRay disks on everything under the sun it would 'just work'... for a given value of 'work', natch.

    6. Re:Better products by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Not sure if trolling, or just stupid...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, the politicians in many countries that can sort this out have been bought and paid for by the illegal media cartels, so expect no change to their tactics.

      Unless you're part of the media cartel, how is it a problem? Their tactics have shown to not work. I'd be more worried if they changed tactics to something that works.

      Though if any media cartel people are listening... I actually do have the perfect solution to protect your copyrights. It'll just cost you billions and trillions

      Hey, if a pirate has to pay tens of thousands of dollars for each 99 cent song pirated, I think it's reasonable that I charge tens of millions of dollars for each 99 cent song protected. Think of all the potential saved sales!

    8. Re:Better products by DCstewieG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was stunned when I watched the Hunger Games Blu-ray this weekend as what I thought was the lead up to the main menu in fact lead to a large message: "Previews for Your Mandatory Viewing". This was a purchased copy mind you, not a rental version. Of course now the Main Menu button was disabled, fortunately the chapter skip button was not (it must not be able to or it would have been).

      This button disabling shit is unbelievable, even the Stop button. Yes, the Stop button.

      To paraphrase John Siracusa, everything about Blu-ray sucks, except the AV quality, which you can't get anywhere else (legally).

    9. Re:Better products by twocows · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is more one of convenience than quality. I think most people have no problem ignoring that sort of stuff, the problem is that it's much more inconvenient to go out and buy or rent a product than it is to go to whatever torrent site and just download it (at least for many people; the remainder are probably the ones who still buy in-store).

    10. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. If the RIAA can't track you down, they'll cut your brother's head off instead - just to send a message. Calling something a "cartel" is like a new flavor of Godwin's Law. We can go with the literal definition of the term though, instead of the connotation, but they don't fit that either - they don't have competitors to conspire with. A non-scaretalk cartel would be something like big cable companies, who divvy up regions and match up their prices instead of competing with each other.

    11. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What fantasy land do you live in?

      It is not even close to reality and you should probably seek help as you are clearly delusional.

    12. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH COME ON. Even if you were deaf, blind, and had no sense of touch, you can TASTE the sarcasm emanating from that post. Now it's my turn to be not sure if trolling, or just stupid...

    13. Re:Better products by houghi · · Score: 1

      Yep.. if you don't like the terms the artist provides the content under, you can just do what ever you feel like.

      This isn't about the artists. This is about the copyright holders. Seldom is that the artist.

      This is about Disney, Sony and the other companies getting control over what you can do. Where you can go and what you can buy.

      This is about companies who buy laws, so that they are in your disadvantage and in their advantage.

      Government should be there to protect the little guy. Instead it fucks them over any way they can.

      When you think this is about the artists, you have bought into their marketing. And this isn't new. They screw the artists just as hard.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > They should have just told the FSF to fuck off. GPL non-compliance makes for a better product!

      You do realize that's the end goal, right?

    15. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Artists have no right to tell you how you consume their content. Nothing in copyright gives the artist the authority to require that his content can only be consumed on region code respecting dvd players, for example. They have every right to restrict further redistribution, but have no rights when it comes to personal consumption of legally obtained works.

    16. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a retard. The artist is the one who decided to let Sony et al distribute their content for them.

    17. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The term for following the letter of the law while defying the spirit of the law is called "unlawful". There are things that are legal, yet entirely unlawful, such as our federal reserve notes. Pursuant to 12USC411, one of these notes can be redeemed for lawful money, as it is merely legal tender denominated in terms of lawful money. Since the notes can be redeemed for lawful money, they cannot be inherently lawful, yet they are most certainly legal.

    18. Re:Better products by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      I think there is only one decent solution to this issue, which is the dramatic expansion of fair use rights to all non commercial use.  Go after folks making money from piracy, and I don't think anyone will complain.

      But a free internet is too important to leave to Hollywood.

    19. Re:Better products by Solandri · · Score: 2

      OP isn't advocating that users pirate movies and music. OP is saying that the poor user-friendliness of the media companies' products drives people to piracy in order to get a better product.

      Your Linksys analogy doesn't really work in this context because the end product put out by Linux and Linksys aren't the same. A better analogy would be OS X. It's based on BSD Unix. BSD Unix has a tiny market share compared to other OSes, even compared to Linux. But Apple came along, gussied it up with a pretty GUI like users wanted and suddenly it's the #2 desktop OS.

      OP is saying the media companies are like BSD Unix - clinging desperately to the CLI when the customers want a GUI (example argument). And that if they'd just give up their old ways and give users what they wanted, they'd have much better market adoption. It'd be like if BSD refused to license to Apple, but Apple went and used it anyway to make OS X. The success of OS X (relative to BSD) isn't meant to demonstrate that pirating BSD was a good move for Apple (in this hypothetical example). It's meant to demonstrate that there's a tremendous opportunity here that BSD is missing out on because they're stubbornly clinging to their old ways.

    20. Re:Better products by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep.. if you don't like the terms the artist provides the content under, you can just do what ever you feel like.

      Small problem: The artist has no say in how the content is distributed. Take Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Ever seen it on TV? Can you find a copy on the internet? As a matter of fact, it's very rare to do so because Martin Luther King's dysfunctional family wants money for it. A seminal work, part of our cultural heritage, and easily one of the top 100 speeches ever given in the United States, can't be shown in public because now that King is dead, his family owns the copyright.

      I do not think King, if he were still alive, instead of his shit-eating family, would say that people who air his speech should give him or his descendants royalty payments. I think, in fact, he may have been rather shocked at how his own family is participating in this new form of slavery and oppression of his people -- by preventing his own message of peace and goodwill from being heard by others.

      So would you propose that we allow his speech, and that of all civil rights leaders who have died and the rights to their words passed on to their greedy children or a trust, corporation, etc., be striken from history? Because that's what copyright law has done here, and in many, many other cases.

      Our children don't know much about history because it's all been revised, and then copyrighted, and then sold off piece by piece. Their only culture is a collection of brand names, pop music, and shitty internet memes. You can thank copyright law for that... it has cut off our access to the past, to our own history and culture... and most of the damage is irreparable.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    21. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you don't like them doesn't make them "illegal media cartels"

      Around 2000, the then 6 major international record labels were subject to anti-trust/anti-competition investigations by both the FTC in the US, and the EC in Europe. They were accused of running an illegal price-fixing cartel (colluding to artificially raise end prices, while lowering royalty rates to artists, i.e. screwing everyone in order to make a profit). Sadly the cases were settled (so we don't have proof that they were doing this) but in their settlement they agreed to stop illegally price-fixing. [Strangely enough, after that the majors' profit share plummeted; they've blamed piracy, but there are certainly other possibilities...]

      So not comprehensive, but evidence to suggest that it is entirely possible there is an illegal media cartel. One only has to look at the cross-overs, seeing supposedly competitive companies working together, funding their own lobby groups, enforcement groups, even bringing court actions together, having shared directorships and so on, to realise that they are not quite as independent and non-cartelly as they possibly should be. Not that anyone has the money, time or legal experience to go up against them right now...

    22. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cartel shill #1. Anyone else want to out themselves as someone that can't or won't think for themselves?

    23. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was stunned when I watched the Hunger Games Blu-ray this weekend as what I thought was the lead up to the main menu in fact lead to a large message: "Previews for Your Mandatory Viewing".

      Agreed! But the funny thing is they can't (yet) stop you from turning the TV off or going to the toilet to give your opinion of their Bluray authoring. I know I see this type of thing and say to myself "Time to take a dump!"

      There is some discussion on whether or not allowing the previews to be skipped with the next chapter button was intentional.

    24. Re:Better products by RogerWilco · · Score: 2

      I got onto the BluRay bandwagon just over a year ago. It lasted for about 4 months.

      The 6th or so disk I bought was for Avatar. I couldn't get it to play. When googling I found out that it probably required a software update to my Pioneer player. Due to some weird incompatibility with my TV, the software update menu doesn't work. I fiddled with it for an entire evening, over 3 hours.

      In the end I downloaded the movie and watched it that way, despite having a legal copy.

      I decided then and there never to buy a BluRay movie again, despite having paid good money for a decent player.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    25. Re:Better products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, moron who thinks he is making a point. Linksys was working for profit. People sharing movies are just people sharing movies for the joy of it. GPL keeps info alive and available. The current abusive copyright situation removes the availability of information. That you don't get the difference is stunning.

    26. Re:Better products by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      I was stunned when I watched the Hunger Games Blu-ray this weekend as what I thought was the lead up to the main menu in fact lead to a large message: "Previews for Your Mandatory Viewing". This was a purchased copy mind you, not a rental version. Of course now the Main Menu button was disabled, fortunately the chapter skip button was not (it must not be able to or it would have been).

      This button disabling shit is unbelievable, even the Stop button. Yes, the Stop button.

      To paraphrase John Siracusa, everything about Blu-ray sucks, except the AV quality, which you can't get anywhere else (legally).

      Wow, just...wow.

      Damn, I was really looking forward to buying the BluRay to support a movie/storyline I quite enjoyed, but if they're going to pull that shit...guess I'll just buy more books and hand them out instead.

      It's a shame, because it's not many movies that I like enough to make me want to own my own physical copy, maybe one every two or three years (sometimes a couple per year, if it's been a good year) but when they crust up the legit copy in so many layers of marketing filth that you're too furious to enjoy the movie once you (finally) get to it...no. I refuse to support that business model, even if I'd really like to support the actual movie itself. Double damn.

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    27. Re:Better products by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      Never mind that people think like that seriously, so it really isn't obvious in any sense of the word.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    28. Re:Better products by pantaril · · Score: 1

      Yep.. if you don't like the terms the artist provides the content under, you can just do what ever you feel like.

      Like when Linksys used Linux for it's routers, and didn't provide the source code... the FSF went after them for it, and they eventually settled and provided the source.

      And that was their mistake. They should never have settled or provided source. They should have just told the FSF to fuck off. GPL non-compliance makes for a better product!

      If i had to choose between a world without copyright and gnu/gpl and current world, where copyright and gnu/gpl can exist, i would surely choose the former and i think that FSF would do the same. (Of course the ideal situation for FSF would be a world where no one can limit distribution of intelectual property and everyone has to provide sources/specs to their work if they distribute it)

  6. Simple. Be a leech and don't seed. by stevegee58 · · Score: 0

    Haha! I downloaded them all and uploaded none!

  7. So, back to sneakernet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of floppies, external hard drives / flash drives?

    1. Re:So, back to sneakernet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works really well if you have a few friends who rip their netflix movie rentals...

    2. Re:So, back to sneakernet? by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not a bad idea actually. I really liked face2face feature in sneakernet. Going to a friend and get the latest CD on tape (some of my friends had 'auto-reverse'!) and then go - with the walkman playing my latest freshest copy - to other friends who copied the tape for themselves to their tape (some of those had 'doublespeed'!). Sit down and have a coffee, talk a little until the tape was done. Reverse both tapes. Have another coffee... Great times!

      I wouldn't necessarily call it sneakernet though. I would call it a SOCIAL NETWORK!!

      --
      rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
    3. Re:So, back to sneakernet? by Inda · · Score: 1

      It's a really bad idea.

      Have another coffee... Great times!

      And then Dave asks if you can get movies, and you can so you do. Then Dave starts asking more and more.

      "Listen Dave, I don't mind getting you the odd DVD, but seven times a week is asking a lot"

      "I'll pay you"

      And so it begins.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    4. Re:So, back to sneakernet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote.

    5. Re:So, back to sneakernet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. "

    6. Re:So, back to sneakernet? by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 1

      Ehhh... there was quite some time between the walkman and the DVD... I lost contact with Dave in the mean while :-P

      --
      rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
    7. Re:So, back to sneakernet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so it begins.

      Too late. Cheap terabyte hard drives hold months of movies. Hold monthly swap parties. Together with six degrees of separation few movies are going to have restricted distribution for long.

  8. This is why I stopped torrenting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's safer to rent movies and rip yourself, direct download links for movies, borrow an open Wifi point, and direct exchange content with friends (hard drive swaps). These methods are far safer than Bittorent. As for TV shows, those seem to be a bit unclear in terms of legality (tested in courts), and not taken to court that I am aware.

    1. Re:This is why I stopped torrenting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see you mentioning filelockers. Isn't that what most are using now?

      I would still be wary of sharing TV in a non-free country. Some programs (like NFL games) have definitely been proven in courts.

    2. Re:This is why I stopped torrenting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, all this does is drive everyone to russian direct download sites which are fine with me, no annoying ratios to worry about or slow seeding. sure, the free version of most direct downloads is kind of slow but it's plenty fast for music and most xvid movies.

    3. Re:This is why I stopped torrenting by Orga · · Score: 1

      You must make a distinction, there are different ways one can torrent things. Some ways are less secure that others... if you say just want to use some public tracker from your home pc, then sure, that's not very safe. If you want to say... have a seedbox hosted in a non MPAA, RIAA friendly country and pay that account with untraceable bitcoins using a fake email account you set up over a VPN and then only use private trackers and use SFTP to bring everything back to your home machine I'd say you're safer than even doing what you're suggesting as even your friend can rat you out or your wifi could be monitored.

    4. Re:This is why I stopped torrenting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and if you just travel around the country copying it from other people while wearing a skimask it'll be even better.

      Honestly, I'm not worried. I don't really dl that much, and most of the stuff is not even available here for years after release. Bloody region 2.

  9. Analytics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    A friend of mine works for a UK company (musicmetric.com) that provides artist popularity data to record companies and other entities (top list providers, etc). One of their data points are monitoring of music torrents. Note that this data is not for the purpose of lawsuits but just to see which artists/albums/songs are popular in different countries and regions (even down to city level using geoip lookup). Their spiders/crawers/monitors they have deployed are, AFAIK, hosted by a 3rd party hosting provider. I also know there's another competing company in the UK doing the same thing.

  10. Marketing companies by Kjella · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing many of them are marketing companies, since torrent feeds give you a fairly accurate picture of what's hot or not and where without the PR spin. Otherwise I don't see much point, the legal value of an IP deteriorates quickly - either you have to send a C&D or sue now, in a year nobody knows who it belonged to.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Marketing companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISPs keep records of who had what IP when dude. It really doesn't take much space in a database to record this, probably takes less than recording all your bill payments. If you counting on no one having a record of what your IP was 18 months ago when you were experimenting with tranny porn...well I have bad news for you....

  11. Name the 6 entities! by Sparticus789 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "But six entities could not be identified because they were masked through third party hosting."

    NSA
    FBI
    FAPSI
    GCHQ
    CSE
    GCSB

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Name the 6 entities! by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      WTF??

    2. Re:Name the 6 entities! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Funny

      "But six entities could not be identified because they were masked through third party hosting."

      NSA
      FBI
      FAPSI
      GCHQ
      CSE
      GCSB

      Please tell me FAPSI has something to do with porn...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Name the 6 entities! by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Russian version of the NSA. Although....

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    4. Re:Name the 6 entities! by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      Do I have to literally spell it out for you? Or you can try Google.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    5. Re:Name the 6 entities! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      With "FAP" in the name, I figured it was a given.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Name the 6 entities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the WTF... other than the FBI, WTF do intelligence agencies care about people infringing movie copyrights?

    7. Re:Name the 6 entities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh.

  12. I dunno by kiriath · · Score: 2

    Why does it matter that they keep track of this information. Pretty soon we'll all have an IP address and we'll be globally trackable and tracked.

    Seems about right to me.

    1. Re:I dunno by kiriath · · Score: 1

      aww, it took out my tin-foil-hat and /tin-foil-hat

    2. Re:I dunno by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      Why does it matter that they keep track of this information. Pretty soon we'll all have an IP address and we'll be globally trackable and tracked.

      I agree. When this happens I'll run an anonymous proxy and all of you can download as if from my IP address. I will become the Digital Jesus, being punished for all of your digital "sins". When they strike me down, I will become more powerful than they ever imagined...

    3. Re:I dunno by kiriath · · Score: 1

      If I could mod this up I'd mod it to 6... well played sir.

  13. Good Luck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm behind seven proxies.

    1. Re:Good Luck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm behind seven proxies.

      Yea, we know -

      Six of them are ours.

      Yours,
      The NSA

  14. Incorrect title by Hentes · · Score: 4, Informative

    "We only detected monitors in Top 100 torrents; this implies that copyright enforcement agencies are monitoring only the most popular content music and movie on public trackers," the team says in its presentation paper.

    So only people downloading the latest movies/music are monitored.

    1. Re:Incorrect title by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "We only detected monitors in Top 100 torrents; this implies that copyright enforcement agencies are monitoring only the most popular content music and movie on public trackers," the team says in its presentation paper.

      So only people downloading the latest movies/music are monitored.

      FWIW, Pogue's column in the latest Scientific American claims that of the 10 most pirated movies over the internet, none are out there for legal rent or purchase.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Incorrect title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or rather, the team's study only looked at the 100 top torrents. Researchers do tend to have limited time and resources.

    3. Re:Incorrect title by Orga · · Score: 1

      The list of top 100 would of course change over time.. the torrents are monitored not the people downloading. Likely they're recorded. Monitoring people is a whole other story.

    4. Re:Incorrect title by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Define monitoring people. The IP addresses of peers are logged, according to the paper.

    5. Re:Incorrect title by Orga · · Score: 1

      "Define monitoring people."
      In this sense I'd say monitoring is then tracking the activity of that IP address unrelated to the specific torrent that was just then downloaded.

    6. Re:Incorrect title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right. Because they're either still in theatres or it's a leaked screener/pre-release DVD, etc.

    7. Re:Incorrect title by QuasiSteve · · Score: 2

      That makes sense when you're talking about 'at that time'. I.e. in 2011, Fast Five came out, and people started downloading crappy cam jobs, screeners, eventually some R5 DVD rip, etc. as soon as they were made available.

      Pogue, however, makes the observation that even now, more than half-way through 2012, none (well, only one as of this writing) of those movies from 2011 he likely referred to are available for online rental - be that Amazon Prime, BlockBuster, etc.

      And he has a point there - given that people still cannot rent (usually a 24 or 48 hour period) these titles online, while the purchase version is almost as expensive as just buying the Blu-Ray, it's not surprising that people who want to watch those movies now are going to go looking for torrents of them.

      I'd be interested to see what figures the beancounters use to come to the conclusion that keeping these titles out of online rental for now is a net positive over not doing so.

    8. Re:Incorrect title by Grumbleduke · · Score: 1

      FWIW, Pogue's column in the latest Scientific American claims that of the 10 most pirated movies over the internet, none are out there for legal rent or purchase.

      As noted above, that is legal rent or purchase "online"; i.e. for download or streaming. If you have a look at the weekly top 10 (TorrentFreak publishes a useful list), usually 8 or 9 of them will be DVD or BluRay releases, so ripped from a legal release (although possibly not a Region 1 one). The other two tend to be cams or screeners, so are pre-release or recent-release.

    9. Re:Incorrect title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that what hentes was implying was that deadheads that download movies like transformers are monitored. It's all about money, and no doubt these monitors work on behalf of major motion picture corporations like Mirimax etc.

    10. Re:Incorrect title by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      And that's assuming you live in the USA.

      I can't watch movies onine legally anywhere. Not Netflix, Hulu, Amazon.com, iTunes, etc.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    11. Re:Incorrect title by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      And that's assuming you live in the USA.
      I can't watch movies onine legally anywhere.

      From your posting history I conclude that it's likely you live in The Netherlands. While the services you mention are not (yet - Netflix should be coming) available in NL, there are other online movie rental options in The Netherlands. Their offerings are more expensive and their catalog not very impressive, though (not that I think Netflix's catalog is impressive).
      There's also usually a video-on-demand option from your TV provider.. those usually have more recent offerings, but of course you're stuck to the TV or a device connected through that provider's internet subscription (Ziggo, e.g. - although I'm not sure they're even offering that yet.. just getting live TV working seems to be a chore for them.)

  15. Ensuring your guilty by na1led · · Score: 1

    Since about 99% of the population will commit some sort of copyright infringement in their life, they can hold it over you in the event you decide to make a complaint.

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    1. Re:Ensuring your guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Ensuring your guilty

      Ensuring my guilty, huh.

  16. EULA by dmbasso · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, if a reverse class-action lawsuit were feasible,

    No, my EULA explicitly says you drop your right for a class-action lawsuit.

    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
  17. Finding targets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rather than pinging every IP address to find a target, run a torrent monitor for a few minutes and you'll have a multitude of targets.

  18. Re:Simple. Be a leech and don't seed. by Orga · · Score: 1

    What is the point of your post. Article title states: Most Torrent Downloaders Are Monitored, Study Finds

  19. I blame the content. by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

    I'm looking at the list of films I can go see at the cinema today. None of them are worth this level of intrusion. Stop making films and music it's bad for freedom. :)

    1. Re:I blame the content. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I don't care if the movie business or the music industry dies. Let them. They're almost universally a bunch of self-congratulatory assholes to begin with. There might be a lack of blockbuster movies for awhile, maybe, but I doubt it. And certainly, they can't argue that we'd be missing out on "quality" music if the music industry shuts down, because most of the crap they provide these days is marketing with a tune anyway.

      People are going to keep making this stuff and, one way or another, it will continue to be supported. Sound engineers and artists are still going to be needed, and good actors, directors, crew and others will be needed as well. Once they figure out how to make themselves useful to the new distribution methods, have no fear, the middlemen will be able to make money hand over fist again. I'm only suggesting that perhaps it is time to move on to the next swindle.

      When you have such a high population of downloaders, many of them who would actually buy some of this stuff if you released it at the same time you did for everyone else, instead of bullshit restrictions to artificially drive up prices, you need to understand that you are not only fighting a losing battle, but you are missing a market you can work with.

      Copying and downloading bits from people sharing them is not stealing and it's not depriving the businesses of sales they deserve to make. They are distribution organizations and cartels which sort of made sense when you needed to press vinyl records and distribute them via trucks to stores. They make little or no sense now that you can just duplicate millions of copies of their wares cheaply and without cost to the distributor.

      So, in summary, the Music companies and Hollywood can feel free to go away. They will not be missed.

  20. Public trackers are like sleeping with hookers. by Orga · · Score: 1

    It might be easy but it's going to make you worry the next day and might come back to haunt you later.

  21. Very unlikely anything would happen... by rs1n · · Score: 1

    There are several reasons why I think reverse class action suits or even fine-per-infraction would happen. If all you do is download, then the copyright holders would have to not only identify you (and IP's are not reliable) but also get around fair use (depending on where you live) in the case where you download content you've already purchased. If you're also seeding, then chances are you will probably get caught sooner or later.

    1. Re:Very unlikely anything would happen... by Galestar · · Score: 1

      And if nobody seeded there would be no bittorrent.

      --
      AccountKiller
  22. It will be used for the six strikes policy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this data will eventually be used for the six strikes policy, all they need is your IP address. It will be collected, automatically reported and the user punished accordingly. When the system comes online, expect millions of comcast users getting their first strike in one day as part of in a massive anti-piracy PR media blitz. It will make the national news as the message will be is "You will get caught, and your internet access will be in jeopardy".

  23. Open Wifi by bussdriver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once monitored, who knows what else they may be doing with your IP address and it MAY NOT BE YOU. Go to somebody's yard use their open Wifi and touch just one of the Top monitored files and they'll get on the monitor list.

    Hate your neighbor? use their Wifi to torrent a bunch of movies currently out in theaters. Six strikes...they probably won't even realize it is the Wifi before being banned by the local monopoly. (In my area both ISPs signed up with the content Mafia so you are probably banned from internet almost completely.)

    Does anybody think it is time to start connecting their neighborhoods on their own?

  24. PeerBlock by forpeterssake · · Score: 1

    Question: When I've used software PeerBlock in the past, I've seen quite a few blocked connections in the log. But does using PeerBlock or something similar actually work to prevent the monitoring identified in the study?

  25. shhh by killmenow · · Score: 1

    *cough*hfrarg*cough*

  26. Practical matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Cisco (Linksys is a brand name) decided to blow the FSF off or drag them through the courts like the **AA does then the FSF would be buried into the dirt; underfunded, and effectively defunct. They had the practical power to do it an no normal citizen would care. It is just too nerdy to complain or fight for free software licensing or expect politicians or judges to go to bat for free. The reason why Cisco didn't ignore the FSF wholesale is because the people responsible for purchasing decisions actually like the GPL.

    So the cliche (and amusingly copyright infringing) thing to do is state this:

    The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do.

    1. Re:Practical matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a man can do and what a man can't do.

      What an empty, tautological state. You promised a copyright infringement, and a movie quote is not even close to fulfilling that either.

  27. Incorrect Pogue quote by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

    I think you mean this article:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-hollywood-encouraging-onine-piracy

    Pogue (don't get people started on him), said:

    Of the 10 most pirated movies of 2011, guess how many of them are available to rent online, as I write this in midsummer 2012? Zero.

    Note that while you added on "or purchase", the article never states this.

    Which is a good thing, too, or Pogue would probably have been called out.
    I don't know who 'the authority' on the 10 most pirated movies of 2011 would be, but I suspect torrentfreak would be a good source:
    http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-movies-of-2011-111223/

    Amazon has all those titles available on DVD, Blu-Ray, some combo packs with 'ultraviolet digital copy' (yuck), instant purchase through Amazon's instant video and - yes - even one rental (127 Hours).

    So "or purchase" is simply false.

    1. Re:Incorrect Pogue quote by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      His point is not that they're not "available", but that they're not conveniently available. Some people still like to rent videos. I do from time to time, because I hate movie theaters. But I don't much anymore because it gives the MPAA money. Still, the point Pogue was making was very well put regarding the industry's efforts to stamp out piracy, but at the same time trying to retain the business model they used when computers had 4k and 22-columns. The movie (and entertainment industry in general) is living in a dream world where they believe they can enforce artificial scarcity through purchased legislation and bullying. They can't. But they certainly try VERY hard... which is why I don't like to give them money, even a little. It fuels their machinery that is trying to actively stomp on my freedoms and my privacy.

      One movie out of all those is available to rent or view on one of the services that the MPAA touts as "legitimate"? Seems pretty stupid of the movie companies to complain about piracy as they try their damnedest to make it difficult to view a movie. Yet they're surprised when it's copied...

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    2. Re:Incorrect Pogue quote by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Well my post was in reply to the whole "or purchase" part from the guy I replied to - not the point Pogue was trying to make (I made another post for that part).

      But just to address something..

      "? Seems pretty stupid of the movie companies to complain about piracy as they try their damnedest to make it difficult to view a movie. Yet they're surprised when it's copied...

      I guess the bar for 'difficult' has been lowered rather tremendously. Most of those movies you can actually buy from Amazon in digital form. Couldn't be much less difficult. Even just buying the DVD and waiting a few days for it to arrive - or, heck, pick it up from a redbox for $1.. or buy it at a BestBuy ..on your way home and have it in your hands right then and there doesn't particularly seem like it's 'difficult' to me. Some of those options may not be 'convenient' - but then Netflix's $8/month (if that's still what it is) is rather 'inconvenient' compared to TPB's $0/month.

    3. Re:Incorrect Pogue quote by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      I guess the bar for 'difficult' has been lowered rather tremendously.

      Do the movies work with Linux? I don't use Windows. I never tried, but I assumed the requirements are windows/mac.

      Netflix is losing support from studios due to strangling license agreements, and like I said in the previous post... most people like to RENT. NOT buy. Studios make that difficult. Yes, it is difficult.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    4. Re:Incorrect Pogue quote by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Amazon movies, Google movies and Netflix do not work with Linux. DRM doesn't like Linux. Bluray is limited and likely illegal in some places, BD+ is not supported yet.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:Incorrect Pogue quote by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Note that while you added on "or purchase", the article never states this.

      You're right; I should have re-read it rather than posting from memory.

      My bad.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Incorrect Pogue quote by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Do the movies work with Linux?

      If you are referring to the DVD - yes. Your choice of deCSS'ing or actually licensed played, afaik.
      Amazon Prime? That depends. There was recently a change that caused things not to play back, but apparently you have to install HAL. My Linux usage is rather limited, though, so I'll point you to the thread:
      http://www.amazon.com/forum/amazon%20video%20on%20demand?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx3EQAX98ED5WQ3&cdPage=1&cdSort=newest&cdThread=TxFTGOK5LRL3JM

      I think there is a bit of a philosophical question here, though. Assume it didn't work on Linux and there were no DVDs available. Then are the movie studios (or Amazon) making it difficult for you to rent/buy the digital copies, or did you make it difficult on yourself by choosing to use Linux?
      Is Mozilla making it difficult for me to watch WebGL content by claiming it doesn't work on my machine, or am I making it difficult on myself by using FireFox? (hint: Chrome serves it up just fine)

      Would I rather that Amazon - and also the studios - embraced Linux completely and supported it through-and-through? Of course.

      most people like to RENT. NOT buy. Studios make that difficult. Yes, it is difficult.

      If the movie simply isn't available for rent online, then I don't think it's a matter of it being difficult. It simply doesn't apply. That doesn't change that I think it's lame that the content isn't available for rent online, but it's also not 'difficult'.
      Once it does become available, though - what will be the next thing that makes it 'difficult'?

      The reason I ask is because the part you quoted was in reply to...

      they try their damnedest to make it difficult to view a movie

      .
      There's no mention there of online rental.

      If we're going to keep narrowing the matter at hand so that there's always something that'll be perceived to be 'difficult', this subthread is going to get very long indeed :)

      Again, don't get me wrong - if I had any say in this (more than I do now, anyway), 24-hour global rentals would become available the same day as the physical media release. Working on it for my limited corner of the world, but it'll take a long time for that to happen here.. never mind the U.S. market or global.

  28. There is an easy explanation for that. by big_e_1977 · · Score: 2

    Its that most of these films were released after IMDB was created. When people see a new movie they actively want to share their opinion of that particular film with the rest of the world. With old movies people are more likely go go "Meh. History already judged it." This is especially true when old movies are cheap and new movies in theaters are expensive. The second factor is how many positive reviews for films are given by the younger people who will give movies like Transformers 10/10, but have never seen better movies like Terminator 2 and the Abyss.

  29. It depends. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    If you get in on a torrent when it first is released and get out as soon as you download it because you are in a repressive country like the USA, they havent even started monitoring it by the time you already quit and your IP had fallen off. RSS feeds of TV shows are your friend along with a modified program that stops seeding as soon as you have it downloaded.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  30. bitch, bitch, bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of-course a fascist like you would want to abolish copyrights and patents, to allow your corporate masters to exert even more power and control over the people. small time inventors and authors, they're just lazy good-for-nothing bastards sucking on the government teet. they need to be exterminated, without a doubt.

  31. Safety Films by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where I work, we have monthly-ish meetings that also includes watching a classic type of "Blood On The ____" workplace safety film. Naturally, at the beginning, there is the FBI warning about stealing imaginary property...

    I really do hope to meet an example of someone who pirates safety films: a thieving cheapskate who is concerned for his employees well-being.

    1. Re:Safety Films by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Klaus is worth pirating! Share the love!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jmnFARPexw
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289477/

  32. The problem is, there is to much by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Informative

    Shareware for the PC in the days before I started to use Linux was just impossible to keep up. 10 dollars here, 10 dollars there... it just never ends. I recently made the mistake of paying for a license for Sublime Text 2. Then I had the need for a plugin to edit files directly over SSH. That plugin wants money too. No doubt more plugins are useful and want money too. And I still need to get a winzip license and pay for god knows how many more tools.

    It is knickle and diming me to death expect the dimes are 100 dollars and the knickles are 50 bucks. And it is not like these sellers try and make it easy, NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD HAS A CREDIT CARD YOU FUCKING AMERICAN CENTRIC ASSHOLE!

    You can either give in (I actually tried to see if F2P works for MMO's and NO IT FUCKING DOES NOT) or say fuck it and be a leech but a leech with money for food.

    But YOU are only asking for a small amount. That ain't the issue. The issue is, SO IS EVERYBODY ELSE.

    Think of ads. One ad ain't a problem. A thousand ads ARE a problem. And there aren't a thousand ads out there, there are millions. You either shut them all out or go insane. And then that poor honest advertiser who really has a product you might want... well. that honest bastard is blocked out too.

    For me the killer with paying for media content was when it became clear that even if you had a song on both LP and CD and Tape AND minidisc (I am a gadget whore)... if you wanted to put it on your new fangled Mp3 player, the music industry wanted you to pay for it again. Now I am a sheep and a I love it when I am shorn but I put the limit at being skinned. Leave us sheep alive to be fleeced once a year, not skinned alive and our succelent meat sucked from out still breathing roasting corpse. Do that and even sheep might get an attitude.

    For desktop software, Winzip was the killer. It whined so much for such a basic tool (and you would need a rar license and lha etce tc) that it just became easier to ignore it and just go free software altogether.

    It was this shareware attitude that killed the Mac for me. Once was forced to use one and every tool seemed to cost money. Run Linux and you got enterprise grade software for free, use OSX and you pay for a basic text editor. Fuck that.

    This sheep is not for skinning.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:The problem is, there is to much by marcosdumay · · Score: 2

      You know, if you are asking for money, instead of requiring payment, the solution for that problem is as simple as non-intuitive. The software developer just needs to ask for bigger amounts. That way few people will pay him more, and the donors will have an easier decision to make ("do I give $10 to this team?" 5 times, instead of "do I give $1 to this team?" 50 times).

      Now, of course, when requiring payment a completely different logic applies. And what WinZip did (is it still there?) was requiring payment, even if the downside to not paying is just some annoyance.

    2. Re:The problem is, there is to much by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It is knickle and diming me to death expect the dimes are 100 dollars and the knickles are 50 bucks. And it is not like these sellers try and make it easy, NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD HAS A CREDIT CARD YOU FUCKING AMERICAN CENTRIC ASSHOLE!

      I have to take issue with this comment. How exactly do you expect Americans to accept your money then? There's only two main ways I know of: credit cards, and Paypal (which also processes credit cards if you don't have a PP account). There's also Google Payments, but that's almost exactly like PP.

      Of course, there's another way: I could fly over to Switzerland and set up a swiss bank account so I can get direct transfers just like the Europeans do. But that seems a little extreme, don't you think?

      A lot of Europeans don't seem to understand that American banks are not generally on the IBAN system; some are on the SWIFT system, but then they'll charge you hefty fees to accept money, so it's not worth using unless you're transferring thousands of dollars at once.

      You might as well complain that someone in Zimbabwe or Indonesia isn't able to accept your European bank transfers.

    3. Re:The problem is, there is to much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how asking for credit cards makes you an "American centric asshole" when credit cards are far more widely accepted pretty much anywhere in the world than any alternative you're about to suggest such as direct bank to bank transfers. There are plenty of systems that are gaining traction regionally but never anything that works worldwide like good ol' Visa. Even cash is currency dependent, try to get Londoners to take your N.I. or Scottish Pounds and remember how good you had it when you were bitching that some people want to accept global payments through an incredibly convenient global payment network.

    4. Re:The problem is, there is to much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD HAS A CREDIT CARD YOU FUCKING AMERICAN CENTRIC ASSHOLE!

      The world does not revolve around you eurotrash anymore. It hasn't in a long time so stop being butthurt about it.

  33. Any movie with such a stoner line has to suck by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 0

    I don't care what it is from, this line can only be from an a-team like movie. You think it is the best ever when you are 12-16 and then you develop a taste.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Any movie with such a stoner line has to suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      wow.

      you sound like a horribly unpleasant person.

    2. Re:Any movie with such a stoner line has to suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      rated 8.3 on IMDB and in the top 500, maybe you're, like, the one with shitty taste, dude.

    3. Re:Any movie with such a stoner line has to suck by cdp0 · · Score: 1

      The Big Lebowski. And confirmation. Now you'd better watch it.

    4. Re:Any movie with such a stoner line has to suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the movie in question but using IMDB's rating as proof that it's good is just wrong.

  34. Boring Torrents by rexbinary · · Score: 3, Funny

    It must be exciting for them to monitor me downloading Fedora or openSUSE.

  35. Retarded title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does "monitors were only regularly detected in Top 100 torrents" == "Most Torrent Downloaders Are Monitored"?

  36. To be fair by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Maybe the OP is a 75+ year old cogger which only like humphrey boggart film , and thinks that since 1947 there hasn't been anything worth watching. We should praise him for using tech at such an advanced age, rather than lambast him for poor taste ;) hihi.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  37. Reminds me of complaints about 'Godzilla 2000'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...The one with Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno, among others.

    How the plot was "shallow and silly", and the characters "lacking depth". That kind of thing.

    As if it wasn't 'Godzilla 2000', or, indeed, just a movie.

  38. Price point and competition by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of course cheaper isn't a reason on it's own, otherwise you are condoning stealing because that too is cheaper.

    The vendors' selection of a price point is something that has gone astray here. And it's linked to competition from other entertainment devices - music and video are a smaller fraction of the pie than they used to be.

    I'm willing to pay up to euro10 for a DVD, and less than that for a CD. This means I wait several months (or a year) after a new release before it reaches my price point. DVDs typically start out here at euro20+ and some CDs are amazingly priced at euro20+ when "hot". After a few months, one has a better view on whether a CD/DVD is worth getting for the long term. There was a time I'd pay the crazy prices being asked for new releases, but it passed a long time ago.

    A few years ago, a survey (maybe in The Economist magazine) indicated that people were spending about the same fraction of their income on entertainment as they had 25 years earlier. However, the share taken by music and video (predominantly VHS then, DVD now) had declined significantly, while that taken by gaming and suchlike had grown, and dining out etc. had not changed much. Clearly, if we're expected to buy just as much music and video, the price has to be more attractive. They're competing with PlayStations, internet, and suchlike for money and attention.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  39. Re:Reminds me of complaints about 'Godzilla 2000'. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but those complaints were valid: Broderick's Godzilla movie was indeed lame. "Just a movie" isn't an excuse; there's been lots of excellent movies over the years with great characters that don't lack depth and didn't have to resort to obviously lame plot devices. "Aliens" (1986) was a great movie, at least as far as characters go. "The Abyss" (1989) was also an excellent movie with good characters. Neither of these pretended to be high art nor aimed for film festival awards, but they were still good movies, so it's not like you can't have a good movie that appeals to a mass audience. Even the earlier Star Trek movies were good, especially The Wrath of Khan.

    Compared to other mass-audience sci-fi movies, and even compared to older Star Trek movies, 2009's Star Trek falls flat IMO.

  40. Re:Reminds me of complaints about 'Godzilla 2000'. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an embarrassingly pretentious loser.

  41. Re:Reminds me of complaints about 'Godzilla 2000'. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um wait. This is the movie about a giant lizard stomping all over Manhattan, and saying "RAAAAARRRGGGHH!", yeah? I bet Duvall was really pissed at his agent for not getting him a supporting in that one.

  42. The monitors are pirates as well... right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did everyone forget that in order to act as a host to receive connections from people wanting to download illegally said host must have some part of the illegal file? Thus making the monitors pirates as well?

    Is it just me or is that tiny detail overlooked?

  43. You want my money, then it is your issue by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    And I have to sign up to a Credit Card that costs me a lot of money (EU banking systems are free or charge 15 euro per year) to allow you to take my money?

    There are plenty of payment platforms around that accept all the worlds payment systems for you. Use them instead of just a Credit Card processor.

    Really smart webshops even give EU customers a discount because that 2% Credit Card charge? Does not exist, iDeal (dutch banking) charges a max of 50 cents if you got the absolute worsed rate in history. So a 200 dollar order doesn't have a 4 dollar credit card free but a 50 cent one. That is money either the customer can safe OR you can keep yourself. And chargeback fee? Ideal doesn't have any. For that matter, a chargeback can only be done when a complaint is made with the police for fraud. Not just because the buyer changes his mind. It is also more secure.

    But hey, go credit card only, enjoy the lack of EU business, higher costs, lesser security and blame it all on people preferring to get stuff for free.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:You want my money, then it is your issue by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Maybe instead of being a condescending asshole, you could point people to some of these vaunted alternatives of yours.

      Your "IDEAL" alternative isn't. It's just like the Swiss bank accounts. You expect Americans to fly to Netherlands and set up bank accounts just so they can accept payments from Dutch buyers? Are you fucking insane?

      In my experience, there's plenty of business from Europeans who aren't so stupid that they refuse to use payment schemes that don't work outside their own tiny little country.

    2. Re:You want my money, then it is your issue by swinferno · · Score: 1

      Credit Cards do not cost a lot of money. The one I have through the bank costs me €17,50 a year.

      If you are a member of the ANWB (the Dutch AAA) which most people who own a car are, you can get a VISA card for €11,50 a year.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
  44. I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is all just to scare downloaders and its working. If they were actually able to prosecute a torrenter sho downloads for personal use, then there is no law anyway so it wouldn't matter if he was just crossing the street or downloading a file. It's scaremongering, and to be fair they do have a case for it although they shouldn't.

  45. Data Protection Act by PremiumCarrion · · Score: 2

    Does anyone know what responsibilities these monitoring companies have under the data protection act?

  46. Performance art by srussia · · Score: 1

    I was stunned when I watched the Hunger Games Blu-ray this weekend as what I thought was the lead up to the main menu in fact lead to a large message: "Previews for Your Mandatory Viewing".

    To get you into film's authoritarian dystopia.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  47. Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why my home wireless network is unsecured.

  48. Copyright Battle Lost/Won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They" already know they lost the Copyright Battle; too many people are sharing copyrighted content with each other and think it's absolutely fine to do so. If they make it a big issue, people will just vote Pirate Party (or any other that supports copyright reform). Millions of people will not accept being bullied.

  49. Tor isn't mentioned specifically by helios17 · · Score: 1

    I got one of those "Never do that again" warnings for torrent downloading from Time Warner a while back and they would not restore my Internet connection until I clicked the "I agree" button at the bottom of the warning. Started using Tor and downloaded the crap out of stuff to see if I got a second warning. Haven't had a problem since but then again, I've started going to fastpasstv.ms to get most of my tv series and movie needs.

    --
    Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
  50. 6 entities could not be identified by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

    Most likely Macromedia. Loose-lipped employees I know confirmed about a decade ago that they like to host as anonymously as possible in order to monitor file trading activities (usually on the end of multiple ADSL lines, in order to appear like endusers)

  51. So, unless I'm reading this wrong... by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

    Does the bit about the top 100 torrents being monitored imply that if you're not downloading anything from the top list, you're likely not being watched? In other words, if someone was to wait a month, rather than download something immediately, they probably wouldn't get spotted?

    Not that I'm necessarily implying this is a good idea - I'm just curious. (The last thing I torrented was a LibreOffice installer - see, it does get used legitimately! :-)