If the Youtube video would be the movie showing right now in cinema, in 720p @ 3-4mbps, then yes, I would pay up to $1-1.5 to see it.
Without any kind of commercials. Not once. Anytime I want (I would be allowed to view only one of the movies I bought at a time so it wouldn't be abused).
The reality is movies won't be available outside US anyway, because of all the deals movie studios make with local distributors and resellers so I couldn't care less.
Oil, natural gas and coal are not the only sources of energy... there's also solar, wind, tidal, hydro and nuclear power and maybe others.
From the alternatives above, only the nuclear can run out... there may be problems making cells for solar power because of the components used... solar, hydro power and wind are possible the most secure and the easiest electricity to produce.
Australia is different. Most of its Internet traffic is from outside the borders, through cables under the ocean, and that traffic costs, a lot... there probably isn't enough capacity in all cables reaching Australia to give people quality bandwidth to all in US.
But in US and Europe there are lots and lots of Internet Exchanges where ISPs exchange traffic for free, so there's no reason to bother with implementing something like that on their own expenses.
I know about 95% billing and would remain true if all customers will keep using their connections as they use them now.
If ISP would change their current plans to something similar to what I propose, there will no longer be any p2p restrictions, limits, people will be able to run servers on their connections because their IP will be fixed (or they'll have IPv6). ISP's would be interested to give user as much upload as download because both will be billed, and if they'll still pay for bandwidth as 95% highest direction, it will be further incentive for them to lower costs per GB, when they compete.
So the usual traffic patter will change somewhat because people will know how much it costs them and websites like Hulu and Youtube will start using more and more P2P technologies to lower their bandwidth usage as P2P will be more reliable - no longer filtered by various providers. People won't mind leaving applications running and uploading when they know it will cost them 20 cents a day or something like that.
The ISP will be motivated to create more peering connections and exchange traffic to increase the quality of their service without actually buying a lot of bandwidth but they'll still have to buy a lot (think transfer between US and Europe, Asian, there's only so many ocean cables out there).
The $0.03 per GB is actually too much. You can get nowadays 100mbps for $150 pretty much anywhere in US and in highly connected places the price goes down to about $7 per megabit for 100mbps. For 1gbps, companies go down to 5$ per megabit and for 10gbps it's even lower.
I realize they'd lose a lot of money because mon and dad won't pay $50 and that's why they're not even considering something like this. Government should step in and force changes with laws and there should be laws that would regulate pricing where there are monopolies..if there has to be a monopoly.
You see they don't do anything without being forced, even though they get tons of money.
If you're in US and download or upload stuff to Europe or another continent, your traffic goes through an ocean cable, which doesn't have infinite capacity and requires maintenance, so ISP companies have to purchase capacity on these cables.
As examples see two cables that connect Asia, India and Europe: SEA-ME-WE 3 and SEA-ME-WE 4
The first can do about 10gbps and the second 1.28Tbps but these cables are also used for telephones, where there are multiple 64kbps channels reserved for that.
So while bandwidth that doesn't get out of the ISP's servers and bandwidth that goes between ISP's through exchange points should be almost or 100% free, some bandwidth does cost.
Also, some network equipment uses more electricity when the number of data packets that go through them increases. Though the difference is maybe ridiculously low, when you have one of these devices in each apartment building or on various locations, the costs add up.
Having installed Steam just yesterday, I can go through 8 pages of game demos with 25 game demos on each page, each game demo varying in size from hundreds of MB to 2-3 GB.
It would not be unreasonable to try 4-6 games each day for a week, doing 6-10 GB of download each day.
They advertised my plan as unlimited so they should suck it up.
So far, I've installed Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and Team Fortress 2 and these two games downloaded from Steam servers 8024 MB, because some resources are shared between these games in the package.
The estimated bandwidth usage required for the rest is:
860 MB Half-Life 2 2160 MB Half-Life 2: Episode One 6132 MB Half-Life 2: Episode Two 2606 MB Portal
So we're looking at 19GB that I could burn through in a single day with my 20mbps connection.
Keeping in mind that most games are 6-8GB nowadays and some come up at promotional prices like 5-10$ from time to time, I don't believe using 25-50GB in abusing the internet connection you've paid for.
On the contrary, the ISP is abusing the poor people that don't require fast connections making money from plans those people don't use.
As I said in other discussions, I personally am opposed to usage caps but I'm not opposed to pay per bandwidth used provided the transition from unmetered to pay per traffic is done fairly for the consumer.
What I'm trying to say is that, if a consumer currently has a 10mbps plan and pays $50 for it, the customer expects that he should be able to use at least half of that anytime he wants during a month. It's not something unreasonable.
So if a company decided to switch to billing him for bandwidth, the plan should cost a small fee for the equipment and for certain speed steps, like $10-15, and then the payment per GB should not be much higher than the previous plan, because it's not fair to pay for less.
So: 8 mbps unmetered gives you around 2.8TB of traffic if used to the max all month, and you pay for this $50. Let's assume a reasonable usage of this connection would be half of that, so we're looking at 1.4TB (1400 GB) for 50$.
This means an equivalent pay per traffic plan could be:
$10 - base subscription $0 - capped at 5mbps
+$5 - raise cap to 10mbps
+$10 - raise cap to 20mbps
[...]
+$40 - raise cap to 50mbps $0 - 10 GB of traffic included in the plan (more if cap raised higher than base 5mbps) $0.03 - 1 GB of data transferred from Internet to computer (cheaper if cap raised higher than base 5mbps) $0.05 - 1 GB of data transferred from computer to Internet
The $0.03 is determined from 50$ / 1400 GB. Upload bandwidth costs more because it often costs the companies more and I want to be fair with them.
With this plan, mom and dad will pay $10 bucks. A very heavy user with a 10mbps connection using it to the max will pay 10$ + $5 for 10mbps cap + $99 (0.03 x 3300GB) = $120
In theory, ISP companies will compete and bring prices down but in US as long as there are monopolies I doubt it will happen even with a change like this.
just a minor correction: the pairs were not shielded, they were just wrapped in some textile material. If they were, the cable would have been STP or whatever it's named (don't care to look at 3AM for the right term)
For example, if someone in US tries to download something from a server in Europe, it has to use one of the fiber optic cables under the ocean.
These cables don't have unlimited capacity, they cost a lot to put in place, a whole ship must be on permanent stand-by to go and fix the cable when it's cut by ship anchors or sharks or earthquakes.
The companies that maintains these cables gives capacity to ISP companies for a certain price, because they have to recover their investment and make a profit, and at the same time must pay all the people that keep the cables working.
So there is "free" bandwidth, inside the ISP's network or through peering agreements and internet exchanges and there's also paid capacity.
The problem is sometimes big companies like Time Warner, AT&T are arrogant and bureaucratic and don't like to do a lot lots of free exchanges because they consider themselves above other networks: they ask to be connected for free to others but ask for money to get traffic from smaller ISPs to them.
They don't want to limit the bandwidth people have just to decrease the bandwidth they have to pay for. They probably have a lot of infrastructure in place which does not scale well (too many subscribers in certain areas, too little fiber installed) and don't wish to invest a lot to upgrade because they're monopoly anyway and subscribers don't have a choice.
They want to maximize their profit so they invest very little in the capacity for which they need to be paid and try to minimize the amount of investments they need to make.
Well, I actually did connect two buildings with Cat5e FTP (shielded UTP) cable, the total length of the cable from one connector to the other being about 128 meters (standard allows up to 125 meters).
Managed 68 MB/s just fine (hard drive couldn't do more), without packet loss. On average during regular use, would get less than 0.5% packet loss.
Cat5 or Cat5e is more than enough for 100mbps networks so there's no need to replace them with Cat6.
If you have a few dollars to spend it would be worth replacing very old cables with factory made patch cords like these.
Manually made (and less often factory made cables) can become bad because those copper terminations that are pushed in to make contact with the cable wires can get slightly loose in time and cause the connection to go down to half duplex or 10 mbps or you could get disconnections whenever someone steps on the cable or moves it.
You can fix it usually by using a crimping tool to press the contacts again but it's not worth it as they'll come loose again soon.
As for your last question... besides what I said above, what could get old is the plastic/pvc whatever that wraps the twisted pairs of copper.
That wrapping doesn't get old and dry enough to break in less than a few years, so you're safe.
How are they supposed to know if it's the real movie or not?
You "specifically stated that the situation was that you linked to the movie" - if I were from TPB I would say "who are you and why should I trust that you're telling me the truth?"
Have you heard about "lying" ?
RIAA and MPAA lie all the time on their DMCA notices when they request stuff to be taken down, they sometimes send them automatically without even checking if the content is fair use or not, so it's simply not possible to believe anyone. (DMCA doesn't apply outside Sweden anyway just in case you want to reply with a remark about this)
I can very well get a HD camera, record 10 hours and post a torrent with 500GB of content. TPB can't possible spend time downloading and inspecting all the content. They can't remove it just because someone says "I'm clearly stating that it's clearly a collection of pirated blu-ray movies" and they should never trust anyone because that anyone could very well be a competitor of mine who wants to see my business fail and my content removed.
What RIAA and MPAA or whoever feels their content is pirated on TPB must do is tell their partners in Sweden to start a lawsuit and request the identity of the person who posted the torrent file and demand from that person to have the torrent file removed. Who posted it it can remove it from the site easily.
If it's the case, just like with the DMCA in US, that person will be able and has the right to reply saying he believes it's fair use and decide not to delete the torrent and continue with the trial.
It could be the actual movie, or it could be the trailer, which is legal to distribute, or the upload could have written that on purpose as incentive for people to get what in reality could be a documentary or interviews about the movie.
If you or TPB or any site removes the torrent for the trailer, the upload could very well sue you because you accused him of copyright infringement and removed his torrent.
You can't download the content of millions of torrents and check the contents.
It's like a judge suing the Postal Office for "assisting crimes" because it's well known they're delivering mail with ransom notes, threats, drugs, unapproved medicine, false checks, packages with counterfeit merchandise, products for which there was no sales or customs tax paid.
They're neutral just like TPB, that's what you have to remember, they provide an infrastructure for good guys to improve their businesses and it's not their fault some people abuse it.
The court is obviously wrong then. Torrent files are not illegal and TPB has no way to detect if the torrent files are causing copyright infringement.
I can very well create a torrent file with the music of my own band and post it on TPB. I and the band own the copyright but some guy out there may think I'm pirating that music because he doesn't know it's done on purpose to promote my music. TPB can't tell, they're neutral.
They don't delete any torrent file just because the file name may indicate pirated work (like "madonna.mp3", because it may very well be a legal work, like a dissertation on Madonna paintings.
Sure, to you some of the torrents posted there are very obviously having illegal content, but there are over 2 million torrents posted and being an open tracker one can use it without even accessing the TPB site or uploading the torrent file there.
They provide a very neutral service, which can not determine the legality of the contents of the torrents.
Good analogies would be suing gas station owners for assisting people who burn buildings on purpose, by letting them buy gas.
Or, suing asstr.org because they have stories with pedophilia and you think it assists pedophiles by giving them ideas on how to abuse children.
They can't take stuff down because the illegal stuff is not on their servers.
The torrent files themselves are not illegal.
They can't take a.torrent file down because the copyright holder for that.torrent file (the user) did not make any request to be taken down.
Claims from RIAA/MPAA/etc can be ignored. Even if it was in US, they're not the copyright owner of the torrent file so they shouldn't be able to request a take down.
I don't know about Wolverine but I can tell you about The Matrix.
According to IMDB, the movie had a budget of $63 million dollars and made $28 million dollars in the first weekend and the gross is reported to be $171,383,253 in September 1999.
Keanu Reeves is said to have received $10,000,000 + 10% of the gross , so that's in theory about 27 million dollars for his performance.
Let's just say that if he would have accepted 500.000 - 1 million dollars for his 3-6 months of filming or whatever much he worked, instead of minimum 10 million dollars, and the rest of the actors follow him, maybe the total budget of the budget would have been halved or even more than halfed.
They could have placed the movie in public domain after a few months of cinema viewing because they got their costs and made profit.
They could even keep showing the movie in cinema even if it's freely available for everyone, because lots of people would like to watch it in cinemas on big screen instead of their small screen. They'd get a buck or more from each ticket and get their money.
I'm sure Keanu Reeves could live with 2 million dollars a year from movies. Even if he works for 2-3 years only, he could put aside more money than a regular person like you do in a life time.
The reality is they want to make as much money as possible... they don't care about the public.
The same with your novel. Even if you make it free, there will be people to buy the book because they want the nice cover and quality paper and so on. If it's good, people will buy it.
You sound like you know stuff but the reality is you don't. The costs are not linear. As the number of torrents and peers increase, everything increases logarithmically, not linearly.
As example, consider announce calls. When one downloads a torrent, it's one announce or scrape each 10 minutes. When there are two people, there are 2 each 10 minutes, and so on until you have about 1000-3000 people on a torrent doing an announce every 30-50 minutes each.
With the average announce/scrape URL of about 200 bytes do the math.
Also keep in mind that the trackers are open, you can create torrents and not post them on the site, and some torrent sites automatically add the open tracker to the torrents as backup, so there are far more torrents out there, the stats on the main page probably only show the torrent count in the search engine.
I think they said during the trial that their servers used about 600mbps of bandwidth, so factor that into the costs. Don't just jump to conclusions.
Who says he needs to use DHCP... my IP is renewed maybe once or twice a year. With IPv6 it will be a thing of the past.
You won't find any child porn dealer using dhcp logs, the real kind of child porn dealers. You'll get only the small fish or people who somehow got their computers infected or in a bot network.
Same for all the other reasons you list... your privacy should be more important than an eventual need sometimes in the future.
Just spend 10-15 dollars on a memory module for that laptop if you're so pis**ed off about it, that it takes so much time. It's not like you're going to go bankrupt from it.
1. Some would, if the companies would actually start selling in that country the product.
2. Some would, if that specific music record or movie would not be out of print or not available in that specific country. A 20 years old album won't be published again for only 1000 buyers so a lot of good music or movies can't be legally bought now.
3. Some do buy stuff but still prefer to download what they already have because they don't want to bother with removing DRM from the content they bought, or they simply don't want to scratch/wear out what they bought.
Or, as it happened in my case, to gain access to legally purchased content.
I have purchased the MASH 4077 set of 33 DVDs, and as Amazon reviews show, I was one of the "lucky" ones to get a couple scratched discs and one DVD out of those 33 with manufacturing flaws.
Two episodes of season 10 were not playable so I've had to download the episodes from the Internet because Amazon would not replace one disc from the set and they didn't had the collection in stock at that time and even if they had, I would have had to spend about 10-20$ to ship the collection back to them.
4. Some are not able to, because they're minors and don't have access to credit cards to buy stuff from outside the country, when that specific product is not avaiable.
... and, even better, will stop new legitimate companies from innovating and bringing stuff to people.
Why should a company be able to start an online TV station, or some other interactive service, that uses bandwidth in a different way?
We don't need no Netflix, Amazon Video On Demand, downloadable content for game consoles, sales of HD videos through Internet instead of cumbersome polluting plastic discs in even more polluting plastic cases.
The old ISP and cable must keep their profits up and have to keep their old ways forever, it's their "right"./sarcasm off
Slashdot Mirror
If the Youtube video would be the movie showing right now in cinema, in 720p @ 3-4mbps, then yes, I would pay up to $1-1.5 to see it.
Without any kind of commercials. Not once. Anytime I want (I would be allowed to view only one of the movies I bought at a time so it wouldn't be abused).
The reality is movies won't be available outside US anyway, because of all the deals movie studios make with local distributors and resellers so I couldn't care less.
Oil, natural gas and coal are not the only sources of energy... there's also solar, wind, tidal, hydro and nuclear power and maybe others.
From the alternatives above, only the nuclear can run out... there may be problems making cells for solar power because of the components used... solar, hydro power and wind are possible the most secure and the easiest electricity to produce.
Australia is different. Most of its Internet traffic is from outside the borders, through cables under the ocean, and that traffic costs, a lot... there probably isn't enough capacity in all cables reaching Australia to give people quality bandwidth to all in US.
But in US and Europe there are lots and lots of Internet Exchanges where ISPs exchange traffic for free, so there's no reason to bother with implementing something like that on their own expenses.
I know about 95% billing and would remain true if all customers will keep using their connections as they use them now.
If ISP would change their current plans to something similar to what I propose, there will no longer be any p2p restrictions, limits, people will be able to run servers on their connections because their IP will be fixed (or they'll have IPv6). ISP's would be interested to give user as much upload as download because both will be billed, and if they'll still pay for bandwidth as 95% highest direction, it will be further incentive for them to lower costs per GB, when they compete.
So the usual traffic patter will change somewhat because people will know how much it costs them and websites like Hulu and Youtube will start using more and more P2P technologies to lower their bandwidth usage as P2P will be more reliable - no longer filtered by various providers. People won't mind leaving applications running and uploading when they know it will cost them 20 cents a day or something like that.
The ISP will be motivated to create more peering connections and exchange traffic to increase the quality of their service without actually buying a lot of bandwidth but they'll still have to buy a lot (think transfer between US and Europe, Asian, there's only so many ocean cables out there).
The $0.03 per GB is actually too much.
You can get nowadays 100mbps for $150 pretty much anywhere in US and in highly connected places the price goes down to about $7 per megabit for 100mbps. For 1gbps, companies go down to 5$ per megabit and for 10gbps it's even lower.
I realize they'd lose a lot of money because mon and dad won't pay $50 and that's why they're not even considering something like this.
Government should step in and force changes with laws and there should be laws that would regulate pricing where there are monopolies..if there has to be a monopoly.
You see they don't do anything without being forced, even though they get tons of money.
Yes there is.
If you're in US and download or upload stuff to Europe or another continent, your traffic goes through an ocean cable, which doesn't have infinite capacity and requires maintenance, so ISP companies have to purchase capacity on these cables.
As examples see two cables that connect Asia, India and Europe: SEA-ME-WE 3 and SEA-ME-WE 4
The first can do about 10gbps and the second 1.28Tbps but these cables are also used for telephones, where there are multiple 64kbps channels reserved for that.
So while bandwidth that doesn't get out of the ISP's servers and bandwidth that goes between ISP's through exchange points should be almost or 100% free, some bandwidth does cost.
Also, some network equipment uses more electricity when the number of data packets that go through them increases. Though the difference is maybe ridiculously low, when you have one of these devices in each apartment building or on various locations, the costs add up.
250 GB is not a problem NOW.
In a year or so, when you'll be able to buy blu-rays online, you'll be able to download a 20-30GB movie or watch it while it's being downloaded.
If you'll plan to watch a movie each afternoon with your family, you'll go over the limit in 2 weeks.
Here you go, just posted it, 19GB of legal content in one shot:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1211717&cid=27712841
Having installed Steam just yesterday, I can go through 8 pages of game demos with 25 game demos on each page, each game demo varying in size from hundreds of MB to 2-3 GB.
It would not be unreasonable to try 4-6 games each day for a week, doing 6-10 GB of download each day.
They advertised my plan as unlimited so they should suck it up.
I've actually bought last night the Orange Box from Valve, because they have a promotion this weekend: http://store.steampowered.com/sub/469/
So far, I've installed Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and Team Fortress 2 and these two games downloaded from Steam servers 8024 MB, because some resources are shared between these games in the package.
The estimated bandwidth usage required for the rest is:
860 MB Half-Life 2
2160 MB Half-Life 2: Episode One
6132 MB Half-Life 2: Episode Two
2606 MB Portal
So we're looking at 19GB that I could burn through in a single day with my 20mbps connection.
Keeping in mind that most games are 6-8GB nowadays and some come up at promotional prices like 5-10$ from time to time, I don't believe using 25-50GB in abusing the internet connection you've paid for.
On the contrary, the ISP is abusing the poor people that don't require fast connections making money from plans those people don't use.
As I said in other discussions, I personally am opposed to usage caps but I'm not opposed to pay per bandwidth used provided the transition from unmetered to pay per traffic is done fairly for the consumer.
What I'm trying to say is that, if a consumer currently has a 10mbps plan and pays $50 for it, the customer expects that he should be able to use at least half of that anytime he wants during a month. It's not something unreasonable.
So if a company decided to switch to billing him for bandwidth, the plan should cost a small fee for the equipment and for certain speed steps, like $10-15, and then the payment per GB should not be much higher than the previous plan, because it's not fair to pay for less.
So: 8 mbps unmetered gives you around 2.8TB of traffic if used to the max all month, and you pay for this $50.
Let's assume a reasonable usage of this connection would be half of that, so we're looking at 1.4TB (1400 GB) for 50$.
This means an equivalent pay per traffic plan could be:
$10 - base subscription
$0 - capped at 5mbps
+$5 - raise cap to 10mbps
+$10 - raise cap to 20mbps
[...]
+$40 - raise cap to 50mbps
$0 - 10 GB of traffic included in the plan (more if cap raised higher than base 5mbps)
$0.03 - 1 GB of data transferred from Internet to computer (cheaper if cap raised higher than base 5mbps)
$0.05 - 1 GB of data transferred from computer to Internet
The $0.03 is determined from 50$ / 1400 GB. Upload bandwidth costs more because it often costs the companies more and I want to be fair with them.
With this plan, mom and dad will pay $10 bucks.
A very heavy user with a 10mbps connection using it to the max will pay 10$ + $5 for 10mbps cap + $99 (0.03 x 3300GB) = $120
In theory, ISP companies will compete and bring prices down but in US as long as there are monopolies I doubt it will happen even with a change like this.
just a minor correction: the pairs were not shielded, they were just wrapped in some textile material. If they were, the cable would have been STP or whatever it's named (don't care to look at 3AM for the right term)
In reality, the bandwidth is not really free.
For example, if someone in US tries to download something from a server in Europe, it has to use one of the fiber optic cables under the ocean.
These cables don't have unlimited capacity, they cost a lot to put in place, a whole ship must be on permanent stand-by to go and fix the cable when it's cut by ship anchors or sharks or earthquakes.
The companies that maintains these cables gives capacity to ISP companies for a certain price, because they have to recover their investment and make a profit, and at the same time must pay all the people that keep the cables working.
So there is "free" bandwidth, inside the ISP's network or through peering agreements and internet exchanges and there's also paid capacity.
The problem is sometimes big companies like Time Warner, AT&T are arrogant and bureaucratic and don't like to do a lot lots of free exchanges because they consider themselves above other networks: they ask to be connected for free to others but ask for money to get traffic from smaller ISPs to them.
They don't want to limit the bandwidth people have just to decrease the bandwidth they have to pay for. They probably have a lot of infrastructure in place which does not scale well (too many subscribers in certain areas, too little fiber installed) and don't wish to invest a lot to upgrade because they're monopoly anyway and subscribers don't have a choice.
They want to maximize their profit so they invest very little in the capacity for which they need to be paid and try to minimize the amount of investments they need to make.
Read and learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foiled_twisted_pair#Cable_shielding
and http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ftp+cable
The FTP cable has a steel wire in the center, each pair is shielded and then all pairs are again wrapped in aluminum foil.
Yeah, shielded unshielded sounds bad, but for most people it's the easiest to understand the difference.
Well, I actually did connect two buildings with Cat5e FTP (shielded UTP) cable, the total length of the cable from one connector to the other being about 128 meters (standard allows up to 125 meters).
Managed 68 MB/s just fine (hard drive couldn't do more), without packet loss. On average during regular use, would get less than 0.5% packet loss.
Cat5 or Cat5e is more than enough for 100mbps networks so there's no need to replace them with Cat6.
If you have a few dollars to spend it would be worth replacing very old cables with factory made patch cords like these.
Manually made (and less often factory made cables) can become bad because those copper terminations that are pushed in to make contact with the cable wires can get slightly loose in time and cause the connection to go down to half duplex or 10 mbps or you could get disconnections whenever someone steps on the cable or moves it.
You can fix it usually by using a crimping tool to press the contacts again but it's not worth it as they'll come loose again soon.
As for your last question... besides what I said above, what could get old is the plastic/pvc whatever that wraps the twisted pairs of copper.
That wrapping doesn't get old and dry enough to break in less than a few years, so you're safe.
The guaranteed bandwidth is around 7-9$ per megabit in US, less if you order bigger chunks like 1gbps or 10gbps.
But this applies to datacenters, not home users.
How are they supposed to know if it's the real movie or not?
You "specifically stated that the situation was that you linked to the movie" - if I were from TPB I would say "who are you and why should I trust that you're telling me the truth?"
Have you heard about "lying" ?
RIAA and MPAA lie all the time on their DMCA notices when they request stuff to be taken down, they sometimes send them automatically without even checking if the content is fair use or not, so it's simply not possible to believe anyone. (DMCA doesn't apply outside Sweden anyway just in case you want to reply with a remark about this)
I can very well get a HD camera, record 10 hours and post a torrent with 500GB of content. TPB can't possible spend time downloading and inspecting all the content.
They can't remove it just because someone says "I'm clearly stating that it's clearly a collection of pirated blu-ray movies" and they should never trust anyone because that anyone could very well be a competitor of mine who wants to see my business fail and my content removed.
What RIAA and MPAA or whoever feels their content is pirated on TPB must do is tell their partners in Sweden to start a lawsuit and request the identity of the person who posted the torrent file and demand from that person to have the torrent file removed. Who posted it it can remove it from the site easily.
If it's the case, just like with the DMCA in US, that person will be able and has the right to reply saying he believes it's fair use and decide not to delete the torrent and continue with the trial.
It could be the actual movie, or it could be the trailer, which is legal to distribute, or the upload could have written that on purpose as incentive for people to get what in reality could be a documentary or interviews about the movie.
If you or TPB or any site removes the torrent for the trailer, the upload could very well sue you because you accused him of copyright infringement and removed his torrent.
You can't download the content of millions of torrents and check the contents.
or another even better example.
It's like a judge suing the Postal Office for "assisting crimes" because it's well known they're delivering mail with ransom notes, threats, drugs, unapproved medicine, false checks, packages with counterfeit merchandise, products for which there was no sales or customs tax paid.
They're neutral just like TPB, that's what you have to remember, they provide an infrastructure for good guys to improve their businesses and it's not their fault some people abuse it.
The court is obviously wrong then. Torrent files are not illegal and TPB has no way to detect if the torrent files are causing copyright infringement.
I can very well create a torrent file with the music of my own band and post it on TPB. I and the band own the copyright but some guy out there may think I'm pirating that music because he doesn't know it's done on purpose to promote my music.
TPB can't tell, they're neutral.
They don't delete any torrent file just because the file name may indicate pirated work (like "madonna.mp3", because it may very well be a legal work, like a dissertation on Madonna paintings.
Sure, to you some of the torrents posted there are very obviously having illegal content, but there are over 2 million torrents posted and being an open tracker one can use it without even accessing the TPB site or uploading the torrent file there.
They provide a very neutral service, which can not determine the legality of the contents of the torrents.
Good analogies would be suing gas station owners for assisting people who burn buildings on purpose, by letting them buy gas.
Or, suing asstr.org because they have stories with pedophilia and you think it assists pedophiles by giving them ideas on how to abuse children.
They can't take stuff down because the illegal stuff is not on their servers.
The torrent files themselves are not illegal.
They can't take a .torrent file down because the copyright holder for that .torrent file (the user) did not make any request to be taken down.
Claims from RIAA/MPAA/etc can be ignored. Even if it was in US, they're not the copyright owner of the torrent file so they shouldn't be able to request a take down.
I don't know about Wolverine but I can tell you about The Matrix.
According to IMDB, the movie had a budget of $63 million dollars and made $28 million dollars in the first weekend and the gross is reported to be $171,383,253 in September 1999.
Keanu Reeves is said to have received $10,000,000 + 10% of the gross , so that's in theory about 27 million dollars for his performance.
Let's just say that if he would have accepted 500.000 - 1 million dollars for his 3-6 months of filming or whatever much he worked, instead of minimum 10 million dollars, and the rest of the actors follow him, maybe the total budget of the budget would have been halved or even more than halfed.
They could have placed the movie in public domain after a few months of cinema viewing because they got their costs and made profit.
They could even keep showing the movie in cinema even if it's freely available for everyone, because lots of people would like to watch it in cinemas on big screen instead of their small screen. They'd get a buck or more from each ticket and get their money.
I'm sure Keanu Reeves could live with 2 million dollars a year from movies. Even if he works for 2-3 years only, he could put aside more money than a regular person like you do in a life time.
The reality is they want to make as much money as possible... they don't care about the public.
The same with your novel. Even if you make it free, there will be people to buy the book because they want the nice cover and quality paper and so on. If it's good, people will buy it.
Here's the server list they use:
http://static.thepiratebay.org/
It's old, now they have even more.
You sound like you know stuff but the reality is you don't.
The costs are not linear. As the number of torrents and peers increase, everything increases logarithmically, not linearly.
As example, consider announce calls. When one downloads a torrent, it's one announce or scrape each 10 minutes. When there are two people, there are 2 each 10 minutes, and so on until you have about 1000-3000 people on a torrent doing an announce every 30-50 minutes each.
With the average announce/scrape URL of about 200 bytes do the math.
Also keep in mind that the trackers are open, you can create torrents and not post them on the site, and some torrent sites automatically add the open tracker to the torrents as backup, so there are far more torrents out there, the stats on the main page probably only show the torrent count in the search engine.
I think they said during the trial that their servers used about 600mbps of bandwidth, so factor that into the costs. Don't just jump to conclusions.
Who says he needs to use DHCP... my IP is renewed maybe once or twice a year. With IPv6 it will be a thing of the past.
You won't find any child porn dealer using dhcp logs, the real kind of child porn dealers. You'll get only the small fish or people who somehow got their computers infected or in a bot network.
Same for all the other reasons you list... your privacy should be more important than an eventual need sometimes in the future.
Just spend 10-15 dollars on a memory module for that laptop if you're so pis**ed off about it, that it takes so much time. It's not like you're going to go bankrupt from it.
Or request one from the IT department.
1. Some would, if the companies would actually start selling in that country the product.
2. Some would, if that specific music record or movie would not be out of print or not available in that specific country. A 20 years old album won't be published again for only 1000 buyers so a lot of good music or movies can't be legally bought now.
3. Some do buy stuff but still prefer to download what they already have because they don't want to bother with removing DRM from the content they bought, or they simply don't want to scratch/wear out what they bought.
Or, as it happened in my case, to gain access to legally purchased content.
I have purchased the MASH 4077 set of 33 DVDs, and as Amazon reviews show, I was one of the "lucky" ones to get a couple scratched discs and one DVD out of those 33 with manufacturing flaws.
Two episodes of season 10 were not playable so I've had to download the episodes from the Internet because Amazon would not replace one disc from the set and they didn't had the collection in stock at that time and even if they had, I would have had to spend about 10-20$ to ship the collection back to them.
4. Some are not able to, because they're minors and don't have access to credit cards to buy stuff from outside the country, when that specific product is not avaiable.
... and, even better, will stop new legitimate companies from innovating and bringing stuff to people.
Why should a company be able to start an online TV station, or some other interactive service, that uses bandwidth in a different way?
We don't need no Netflix, Amazon Video On Demand, downloadable content for game consoles, sales of HD videos through Internet instead of cumbersome polluting plastic discs in even more polluting plastic cases.
The old ISP and cable must keep their profits up and have to keep their old ways forever, it's their "right". /sarcasm off