That will only work if you already have all those data on your flash drive. Flash drives for end-users are like 16GB today, will people use that for their primary drives? I don't know you have read the FTA but the advertised 160GB HD is a regular HD with a regular flash drive as cache.
Otherwise any of those enhancements could only and probably are already done preemptively by application, like your file explorer keeping a thumbnails file and your media player pre-fetching your playlist. Which work the same way for either flash or HD
Your OS/filesystem is smart enough to allocate big files on a continuous space, you'd only have fragmentation problems with that kind of files if your HD is almost full. Where the problem is the size of the HD and the solution isn't flash disks because they're much smaller.
The speed of sequential access is about the same for HD and flash.
Flash is better for random access which is not very important for end-user, that's why end user doesn't care about SCSI, since for them HD is just storage as it supposed to be.
Kernels/filesystems/application aren't just prepared to use the "power" of flash. What's the point of having flash as a disk cache if RAM already does that? I don't see where the "most used" algorithm of flash disks is different from those used for RAM, so you happen to have a lot data cached twice for no purpose.
RAM is way faster than Flash and 64bits processors give a big limit (32GB) of RAM/processor. Flash is cheaper but, as said, much slower, flash disks will be as commom as buying a 36GB 15k HD to use as cache of your 750GB 7.2k
Objects are cheapier so the country is wealthier, but for how long?
That depends of what kind of objects people buy and what they do with the savings of buying cheapier objects.
There are two ways of making wealth last. Invest your wealth on production of more wealth or buy products that last long.
People are generally buying consumer products like eletronics and big cars. Both usually don't last much since they're luxury products where the motivation to buy is buying the most "modern" model. They even do the opposite of producing wealth since both are energy hogs.
Stuff are cheapier but people isn't buying the same thing cheapier but all their money can buy. So there's little real savings in the process to invest in production.
In the short term it gives people a good life, since they're buying more luxury products, but if they shift wealth production overseas in the future they won't have money to buy those products.
I don't see that "Hollywood attack". The article author failure to provide massive attack examples.
No one will see that kind of attack because there isn't a single point of failure. They can't totally destroy that kind of distribution but only sue some players for refund.
I can even say Holywood heads probably have no idea about many ways to defeat P2P or are doing a poor job because I often see significant points of failure in that scheme.
Holywood don't wan't to end the movie theater experience, that's the main reason you don't see a DVD/Netflix the same time it's released on the theaters as P2P folks do. Watching a movie on a bad enviroment (computer screen, small tv, bad sound, not focusing on it) lowers the movie experience which can return in bad publicity.
Of course nowadays Hollywood can afford twice selling the movie and after that selling the DVD. But if the movie isn't really good no one will buy both.
People complain about quality, I don't like that crap so I don't watch/listen it. But people keep downloading while saying it's crap that don't worth their money. Either they like it enough to keep watching, just wan't the power to tell their friends they saw the movie before/for free or insanely download files they'll never use. If crap movie is the point, critic the audience (including you and P2P friends).
Google/YouTube don't care about other people copyright. Google mantra is "index the world... and eventually make it available with ads". So copyright is their enemy.
To those who can't believe let me tell their control of copyright abuse works by faxing or sending a letter to their office where a human will take that paper from the pile and type the offense on the computer. They're a top notch technology company but have zero technology to proactive prevent copyright violations.
You see they working proactively only when some is suing them. Because of that they are promising a fingerprinting tool. No, wait, that's to ensure everyone only see the version of the show which have their ads on it.
Google point is to reduce the value of copyright to the point they can use the content for free or make the copyright owners welcome their terms ("I'm not bad, just want 10% of everything you sell").
They don't say that out loud to don't shadow the "not evil" slogan, they prefer to work silently behind you.
Those cool HDs probably were dead, because 20C is around DC temperature and it's unlikely a HD with a working motor will have such temperature. Probably the motor was dead and only the circuit board was working.
Also these studies are probably focused on next generation HDs, which will have speeds higher than 7.2k HDs used by Google.
Google isn't just "selling ads" they're monitoring people habits. They can monitor what words people talk and with who. They provide a hardware based ID so any services used trough the cell phone can not be anonymized. In the end they can use all that info to "sell ads" and "index the world", two of the Google mantras.
Google marketing is to charge everyone 10% while advertising the 90% discount. People are so prone to technology that they don't care what they're giving back.
PirateBay legal protection, by themselves, is based on that law. So they agree it fits their case and will need to find another argument for that book (literary works).
PirateBay also own the tracker servers that control the distribution network exclusive for that book (every distribution network is configured by a torrent). This is much more than linking. Of course that's just my opinion and I don't want to argue for decades with people insisting it's "just linking".
I mistaken the words, it's literary. I will copy as is to avoid mistakes.
Article 11 a. Temporary forms of copies of works may be made, if the making of the copies is an integral and essential part of a technological process and if the copies are transient or have only a secondary importance in that process. The copies must not have any independent economic importance.
The making of copies under the first Paragraph is permissible only if the sole purpose of that making is to enable 1. a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or 2. a lawful use, that is, a use that occurs with the consent of the author or his successor in title or another use that is not unpermissible under this Act.
The provisions under the first and second Paragraphs do not confer a right to make copies of literary works in the form of computer programs or compilations.
About liability most TOS state, sometimes obscured in that document, the right of companies to remove whatever they want. The DMCA and ECPA also give protection for Good Samaritan acts.
Take the file name of a recent movie; size over 200mb (not a trailer) or whatever your research finds out is too big that need to have a monetary value to compensate the effort; (un)usual file extension/codec/bitrate; recent account or with little published content; account name matches accounts already used for violations; hundreds downloads in a few hours; referrers to a site used to hide origin, with lot of "moviez" on it or well known for violations.
Weight all that factors, put a smart guy checking results (not completely automatic as RIAA try), repeat.
Soon the work of violators will be harder and they'll give up (move to another neighborhood or pay that 7$).
Internet companies don't care because they profit with ads or get eyeballs for their service.
I didn't say that software already exist but there are internet companies big enough to develop baesyan filters to raise a flag on such content. Some of that companies already develop such kind of software for their email services.
1 - It won't detect all content it'll detect some. But copyright violations are more focused on very few new material. That's is easier to focus and detect. Since that content will be removed faster copyright violators will receive less incentive to publish content alike.
2 - We're talking about users of public services (that charge no or a very small fee) and recently released material from large companies. It's very much unlikely that kind of user have a license to distribute such material.
Such kind of false positive can be more rare than false positive spam and Internet companies already have legal protection to deal with those (their TOS, DMCA and other laws)
Teenagers downloading music may not be the worst copyright offenders.
This guy is kidding right? Or he is referring to adult downloading movies/software as the worst offenders.
In fact the worst copyright offenders are lazy people. That don't care about their users' violations until, few days after the content was published, some copyright owner find that content, mail or fax (the requested medium) a DMCA notification, an wait until, in a weekday, a clerk at the lazy company office finally pick that notice from the pile and manually remove the content.
About a week have passed since the time the offensive content was published until the moment it was removed. It took at worst a couple hours to the offender publish it. So DMCA have little impact on the offender which feel all that delay as an incentive to publish more offensive material.
TOS and DMCA already give companies the right to unilaterally remove content they fell offensive, they could develop software as good as spam/virus filters to remove such content. But those companies are lazy they only act if obligated.
So, more content is violated each day, protected by that lazy companies.
The mistakes? Since all violations are only threated after complaints imagine the pile of complaints an underpaid guy have to deal each day. That can't be a intellectual job but a mechanical one, which only care to check if all fields are filled.
If you care about freedom of speech check how the internet company you're using deals with copyright violations. If they don't act proactively any complaint about you will go to the same pile of all those copyright violations and it's likely to be removed by a guy who probably can't say if Beethoven is alive or not.
A tracker doesn't host the questionable material, computers connected to the tracker might. Do a search on images.google.se for lolicon. The resulting page will contain material that is illegal in sweden
The.torrent files are references, Google search is also a reference. In my point of view both can be considered illegal. If those references will be considered criminal activity or not it will depend of how those parties act to avoid/remove them.
Swedish law seen to don't care about references for piracy, but it seen Swedish ISPs care about references to underage porn.
Don't know about dutch law since most of the trackers you reported are located at the Netherlands.
Tracker servers on the other side are not just references, like.torrent files, which someone can easily copy around. It's a key point on the file distribution scheme, most torrents won't work or will work very badly without a tracker server.
A tracker server is directly associated with the main distributor, it's not an average guy web page mentioning a web link. The tracker server is used by distributor as way to coordinate the communication between the clients. If the tracker server stop providing services to that distributor the whole distribution network is likely to collapse or become isolated.
So we are talking about an essential service, which manage the configuration of such distribution network, not a mere reference to that network.
Regardless of what you think about TPB, this is just state-mandated censorship. Everything on TBP is also reachable from google. So assuming this isn't politically motivated, google is next. Right?
Google doesn't have any BitTorrent trackers hosting questionable material. Such trackers provide the infrastructure for underage porn distribution, which was already mentioned here in Slashdot. No I won't provide links since they don't deserve promotion, if you care do your homework.
Those ISPs voluntary choose to filter underage porn, that's not state-mandated.
No, the servers for their trackers are dutch.
tpb.tracker.thepiratebay.org resolves to 85.17.40.227
which is an IP originaly assigned to Leaseweb (a dutch ISP).
Connectivity do that IP is directly provided, in Amsterdam, by companies that operate in the US that could be sued, in US or Netherlands, for indirect profit from piracy or forced to cease their service to PirateBay (check your traceroutes).
DNS can resolve diferently for some because of Round Robin, but they do have servers in Nederlands which are supported by companies that operate in the US.
That's a torrent specific application with a lot of features, not mere.torrent files, they also run the trackers (not textfiles either). Any of those can be illegal.
"If enough Internet users begin to prefer PCs and other devices designed along the locked-down lines of tethered appliances, that change will tip the balance in a long-standing tug of war from a generative system open to dramatic change to a more stable, less-interesting system that locks in the status quo."
DRM Hurra, for making the Internet more stable and people less free.
Now a bit more serious, that's still a single point of failure, the closed devices that, if compromised, none may notice or easily recover.
People still crack Xbox, blue-ray, even being closed devices, because they see a value on it, but what's the value of cracking an Ipod ?
Low price and marketing (deadlines) will continue to be the focus of big companies, not reliability and security, although the working environment will be more predictable.
And PCs won't die before TV Sets do, which I mean both will coexist with new (more things to sell) technology.
Randy will always find a silly excuse to don't give the money, like "the partners knew each other before", "they weren't 100 miles far away" or any other excuse he makes up to turn the experiment unpratical.
That's no X Prize, with strict rules, it's just someone saying he will give some money if someone else convince him to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
That will only work if you already have all those data on your flash drive. Flash drives for end-users are like 16GB today, will people use that for their primary drives? I don't know you have read the FTA but the advertised 160GB HD is a regular HD with a regular flash drive as cache.
Otherwise any of those enhancements could only and probably are already done preemptively by application, like your file explorer keeping a thumbnails file and your media player pre-fetching your playlist. Which work the same way for either flash or HD
Your OS/filesystem is smart enough to allocate big files on a continuous space, you'd only have fragmentation problems with that kind of files if your HD is almost full. Where the problem is the size of the HD and the solution isn't flash disks because they're much smaller.
The speed of sequential access is about the same for HD and flash.
Flash is better for random access which is not very important for end-user, that's why end user doesn't care about SCSI, since for them HD is just storage as it supposed to be.
Kernels/filesystems/application aren't just prepared to use the "power" of flash. What's the point of having flash as a disk cache if RAM already does that?
I don't see where the "most used" algorithm of flash disks is different from those used for RAM, so you happen to have a lot data cached twice for no purpose.
RAM is way faster than Flash and 64bits processors give a big limit (32GB) of RAM/processor. Flash is cheaper but, as said, much slower, flash disks will be as commom as buying a 36GB 15k HD to use as cache of your 750GB 7.2k
Objects are cheapier so the country is wealthier, but for how long?
That depends of what kind of objects people buy and what they do with the savings of buying cheapier objects.
There are two ways of making wealth last. Invest your wealth on production of more wealth or buy products that last long.
People are generally buying consumer products like eletronics and big cars. Both usually don't last much since they're luxury products where the motivation to buy is buying the most "modern" model. They even do the opposite of producing wealth since both are energy hogs.
Stuff are cheapier but people isn't buying the same thing cheapier but all their money can buy. So there's little real savings in the process to invest in production.
In the short term it gives people a good life, since they're buying more luxury products, but if they shift wealth production overseas in the future they won't have money to buy those products.
I don't see that "Hollywood attack". The article author failure to provide massive attack examples.
... and eventually make it available with ads". So copyright is their enemy.
No one will see that kind of attack because there isn't a single point of failure. They can't totally destroy that kind of distribution but only sue some players for refund.
I can even say Holywood heads probably have no idea about many ways to defeat P2P or are doing a poor job because I often see significant points of failure in that scheme.
Holywood don't wan't to end the movie theater experience, that's the main reason you don't see a DVD/Netflix the same time it's released on the theaters as P2P folks do.
Watching a movie on a bad enviroment (computer screen, small tv, bad sound, not focusing on it) lowers the movie experience which can return in bad publicity.
Of course nowadays Hollywood can afford twice selling the movie and after that selling the DVD. But if the movie isn't really good no one will buy both.
People complain about quality, I don't like that crap so I don't watch/listen it. But people keep downloading while saying it's crap that don't worth their money. Either they like it enough to keep watching, just wan't the power to tell their friends they saw the movie before/for free or insanely download files they'll never use. If crap movie is the point, critic the audience (including you and P2P friends).
Google/YouTube don't care about other people copyright. Google mantra is "index the world
To those who can't believe let me tell their control of copyright abuse works by faxing or sending a letter to their office where a human will take that paper from the pile and type the offense on the computer. They're a top notch technology company but have zero technology to proactive prevent copyright violations.
You see they working proactively only when some is suing them. Because of that they are promising a fingerprinting tool. No, wait, that's to ensure everyone only see the version of the show which have their ads on it.
Google point is to reduce the value of copyright to the point they can use the content for free or make the copyright owners welcome their terms ("I'm not bad, just want 10% of everything you sell").
They don't say that out loud to don't shadow the "not evil" slogan, they prefer to work silently behind you.
Those cool HDs probably were dead, because 20C is around DC temperature and it's unlikely a HD with a working motor will have such temperature. Probably the motor was dead and only the circuit board was working.
Also these studies are probably focused on next generation HDs, which will have speeds higher than 7.2k HDs used by Google.
That screening behavior is required just for previews. It's on MPAA public documents.
Sorry for feeding the troll but...
Google isn't just "selling ads" they're monitoring people habits. They can monitor what words people talk and with who. They provide a hardware based ID so any services used trough the cell phone can not be anonymized. In the end they can use all that info to "sell ads" and "index the world", two of the Google mantras.
Google marketing is to charge everyone 10% while advertising the 90% discount. People are so prone to technology that they don't care what they're giving back.
4.5bi for airwaves, so I wonder how much they already spent on dark fibers and what they bought with all that money.
PirateBay legal protection, by themselves, is based on that law. So they agree it fits their case and will need to find another argument for that book (literary works).
PirateBay also own the tracker servers that control the distribution network exclusive for that book (every distribution network is configured by a torrent). This is much more than linking. Of course that's just my opinion and I don't want to argue for decades with people insisting it's "just linking".
I mistaken the words, it's literary.
I will copy as is to avoid mistakes.
Article 11 a. Temporary forms of copies of works may be made, if the making of the copies is an integral and essential part of a technological process and if the copies are transient or have only a secondary importance in that process. The copies must not have any independent economic importance.
The making of copies under the first Paragraph is permissible only if the sole purpose of that making is to enable
1. a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or
2. a lawful use, that is, a use that occurs with the consent of the author or his successor in title or another use that is not unpermissible under this Act.
The provisions under the first and second Paragraphs do not confer a right to make copies of literary works in the form of computer programs or compilations.
FTA: available via bittorrent
Swedish law protects online "caching" of several copyrighted material, the exception to the rule is literacy.
That means PirateBay, which owns bayimg and the bittorrent servers controlling the distribution network of that online book now can be sued.
About liability most TOS state, sometimes obscured in that document, the right of companies to remove whatever they want. The DMCA and ECPA also give protection for Good Samaritan acts.
Surely you're not the guy for the job.
Take the file name of a recent movie; size over 200mb (not a trailer) or whatever your research finds out is too big that need to have a monetary value to compensate the effort; (un)usual file extension/codec/bitrate; recent account or with little published content; account name matches accounts already used for violations; hundreds downloads in a few hours; referrers to a site used to hide origin, with lot of "moviez" on it or well known for violations.
Weight all that factors, put a smart guy checking results (not completely automatic as RIAA try), repeat.
Soon the work of violators will be harder and they'll give up (move to another neighborhood or pay that 7$).
Internet companies don't care because they profit with ads or get eyeballs for their service.
I'm not talking about video fingerprint, that's a hard thing.
...
But you can use other patterns as filename, filesize, user history, downloads/hour, referrer,
Sure just one of them isn't enough but if you combine all you can get a good estimation.
they could develop software
I didn't say that software already exist but there are internet companies big enough to develop baesyan filters to raise a flag on such content. Some of that companies already develop such kind of software for their email services.
1 - It won't detect all content it'll detect some. But copyright violations are more focused on very few new material. That's is easier to focus and detect. Since that content will be removed faster copyright violators will receive less incentive to publish content alike.
2 - We're talking about users of public services (that charge no or a very small fee) and recently released material from large companies. It's very much unlikely that kind of user have a license to distribute such material.
Such kind of false positive can be more rare than false positive spam and Internet companies already have legal protection to deal with those (their TOS, DMCA and other laws)
Teenagers downloading music may not be the worst copyright offenders.
This guy is kidding right? Or he is referring to adult downloading movies/software as the worst offenders.
In fact the worst copyright offenders are lazy people. That don't care about their users' violations until, few days after the content was published, some copyright owner find that content, mail or fax (the requested medium) a DMCA notification, an wait until, in a weekday, a clerk at the lazy company office finally pick that notice from the pile and manually remove the content.
About a week have passed since the time the offensive content was published until the moment it was removed. It took at worst a couple hours to the offender publish it. So DMCA have little impact on the offender which feel all that delay as an incentive to publish more offensive material.
TOS and DMCA already give companies the right to unilaterally remove content they fell offensive, they could develop software as good as spam/virus filters to remove such content. But those companies are lazy they only act if obligated.
So, more content is violated each day, protected by that lazy companies.
The mistakes? Since all violations are only threated after complaints imagine the pile of complaints an underpaid guy have to deal each day. That can't be a intellectual job but a mechanical one, which only care to check if all fields are filled.
If you care about freedom of speech check how the internet company you're using deals with copyright violations. If they don't act proactively any complaint about you will go to the same pile of all those copyright violations and it's likely to be removed by a guy who probably can't say if Beethoven is alive or not.
A tracker doesn't host the questionable material, computers connected to the tracker might.
.torrent files are references, Google search is also a reference. In my point of view both can be considered illegal. If those references will be considered criminal activity or not it will depend of how those parties act to avoid/remove them.
.torrent files, which someone can easily copy around. It's a key point on the file distribution scheme, most torrents won't work or will work very badly without a tracker server.
Do a search on images.google.se for lolicon. The resulting page will contain material that is illegal in sweden
The
Swedish law seen to don't care about references for piracy, but it seen Swedish ISPs care about references to underage porn.
Don't know about dutch law since most of the trackers you reported are located at the Netherlands.
Tracker servers on the other side are not just references, like
A tracker server is directly associated with the main distributor, it's not an average guy web page mentioning a web link. The tracker server is used by distributor as way to coordinate the communication between the clients. If the tracker server stop providing services to that distributor the whole distribution network is likely to collapse or become isolated.
So we are talking about an essential service, which manage the configuration of such distribution network, not a mere reference to that network.
It's quite impossible to keep every user away, specially the advanced ones, but most people are not advanced users and that work fine for them.
So you put your files on PirateBay and don't want to be confused with piracy? If you really care choose a tracker with a better neighborhood.
Regardless of what you think about TPB, this is just state-mandated censorship. Everything on TBP is also reachable from google. So assuming this isn't politically motivated, google is next. Right?
Google doesn't have any BitTorrent trackers hosting questionable material. Such trackers provide the infrastructure for underage porn distribution, which was already mentioned here in Slashdot. No I won't provide links since they don't deserve promotion, if you care do your homework.
Those ISPs voluntary choose to filter underage porn, that's not state-mandated.
HND
tpb.tracker.thepiratebay.org resolves to 85.17.40.227 which is an IP originaly assigned to Leaseweb (a dutch ISP).
Connectivity do that IP is directly provided, in Amsterdam, by companies that operate in the US that could be sued, in US or Netherlands, for indirect profit from piracy or forced to cease their service to PirateBay (check your traceroutes).
DNS can resolve diferently for some because of Round Robin, but they do have servers in Nederlands which are supported by companies that operate in the US.
That's a torrent specific application with a lot of features, not mere .torrent files, they also run the trackers (not textfiles either). Any of those can be illegal.
"If enough Internet users begin to prefer PCs and other devices designed along the locked-down lines of tethered appliances, that change will tip the balance in a long-standing tug of war from a generative system open to dramatic change to a more stable, less-interesting system that locks in the status quo."
DRM Hurra, for making the Internet more stable and people less free.
Now a bit more serious, that's still a single point of failure, the closed devices that, if compromised, none may notice or easily recover.
People still crack Xbox, blue-ray, even being closed devices, because they see a value on it, but what's the value of cracking an Ipod ?
Low price and marketing (deadlines) will continue to be the focus of big companies, not reliability and security, although the working environment will be more predictable.
And PCs won't die before TV Sets do, which I mean both will coexist with new (more things to sell) technology.
Randy will always find a silly excuse to don't give the money, like "the partners knew each other before", "they weren't 100 miles far away" or any other excuse he makes up to turn the experiment unpratical.
That's no X Prize, with strict rules, it's just someone saying he will give some money if someone else convince him to do so.
"Then you end with a quote supporting copyright"
The point isn't copyright, is its purpose, that affects how long it lasts.