 |
 |  Alphy
join:2001-12-31 Troy, MI | Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? Where did you read that it was 1%? Please link me to that | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |   supergirl
join:2007-03-20 Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? said by prestonlewis :said by supergirl :said by Alphy :Where did you read that it was 1%? Please link me to that I believe it was in the NY Times a few years ago. I've went to Torrent sites. All I saw was illegal stuff. So, I bet the 99% of file-sharing is illegal is probably correct. No, no, no. You got it backwards. The NYT said only 1% was illegal. I recently visited a torrent site and everything I saw was legal. I'm sure 99% of file-sharing is legal is probably correct. Opinions. You can warp 'em any way you want! Just when I didn't think I could find a more ridiculous comment.  -- Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton. -Supergirl | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   booticon
join:2007-07-31 East Lyme, CT
1 edit | Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? Says the person who went to torrent sites where ALL THEY HAVE IS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. Yeah, that's the *only* place to get stuff via BitTorrent.
That 1% is probably right, given the sheer amount of copyright infringement that is done, but you've gotta find more evidence than a random NYT article you can't find and your searches through teh torrentz. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   tiger72 SexaT duorP Premium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO clubs: | irony much? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   themessiah13
@ameritech.net
| said by supergirl :Just when I didn't think I could find a more ridiculous comment. Haha. This is hilarity. It is OK for you to use that reasoning but when it is turned around you it is unacceptable and ridiculous? This is what the word hypocrite in the English language refers to. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   Silly Fool
@comcast.net
| Umm you obviously are anti downloading copyright stuff from Bit Torrent.
Have you heard of Hulu, Joost or Fancast? Watched a Full Epidsode of your favorite TV show or caught a movie on these sites or on ABC, CBS, NBC, etc...?
If you have or have heard of these legal alternatives its because of our supposed pirate activities! We can thank piracy for these legal sites and thank the Pirate Bay guys for being pioneers!
Piracy equals progress! It always has...(from the printing press to today's supposed illegal downloading) | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   jubangy Premium join:2005-03-26 Erie, PA | Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? said by Silly Fool :
Piracy equals progress! It always has...(from the printing press to today's supposed illegal downloading) From apple to microsoft | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| said by prestonlewis :said by supergirl :said by Alphy :Where did you read that it was 1%? Please link me to that I believe it was in the NY Times a few years ago. I've went to Torrent sites. All I saw was illegal stuff. So, I bet the 99% of file-sharing is illegal is probably correct. No, no, no. You got it backwards. The NYT said only 1% was illegal. I recently visited a torrent site and everything I saw was legal. I'm sure 99% of file-sharing is legal is probably correct. Opinions. You can warp 'em any way you want! Are you high? You probably think download a copy of your favorite movie or TV show via torrent is legal don't you? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  jp10558 Premium join:2005-06-24 Willseyville, NY
| Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? Movie, no. TV Show? Probably not legal, but much harder IMO to defend being illegial.
I can tape a TV show to VHS (and edit out commercials) and watch it later. That's legal. I can take that tape to a different location and watch it, and it's legal. I'm pretty sure most people would also think it's reasonable for me to give that tape to a friend and that would still be legal.
But if I download that show after it airs from a torrent (at a reduced quality if it's a 350MB XviD file) - that's illegial. This gets back to this color of the bits essay - it's kind of retarded IMO. -- Opera 9.23(Build 8808); Windows XP Pro SP2;Athlon 64 X2 4600+; 2.5GB PC3200 DDR; 1M/128k DSL; NOD32(Version 2.5.25); Outpost Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Grypen 5/23/07(Opera mod),GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   Speedy8 Premium join:2002-08-22 Alliance, OH clubs:
2 edits | Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? Well, the main difference is that when you download a show via P2P, copies are being made and distributed. I'm sure if you were at home making thousands of copies of VHS tapes of shows without commercials and gave them to people it might be an issue. Personally I have no problems with people downloading TV shows, but I can see the argument vs just letting a friend borrow a tape you made or keeping it for your own use.
A more comparable analogy is recording a show yourself on your PC as a file instead of using a VHS tape. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   hopeflicker Capitalism breeds greed Premium join:2003-04-03 Long Beach, CA
| said by BF69 :You probably think download a copy of your favorite movie or TV show via torrent is legal don't you? I find it equivalent to recording it to DVR or Tape.
My isp/tv provider is Verizon. Why should it matter if the ones and zeros are sent to my DVR or computer?  -- Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   Edge1 Workin' Ta Live Premium join:2006-03-01
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? said by hopeflicker :said by BF69 :You probably think download a copy of your favorite movie or TV show via torrent is legal don't you? I find it equivalent to recording it to DVR or Tape. My isp/tv provider is Verizon. Why should it matter if the ones and zeros are sent to my DVR or computer? I'd just like to point out that this is quality work (the graphic).
Actually, the article mentions "clogged up" pipes. Are there really any clogged up pipes? I mean, I don't have any problems consistently getting the full speed I paid for (DSL).
And I'm glad the article pointed out the loss of customers potential. Really, a lot of customers paying for that super-fast speed may opt down to the lowest tier or switch ISPs completely. Not a good business move except for, perhaps, the RIAA/MPAA. And that's truly debatable as well. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |   hopeflicker Capitalism breeds greed Premium join:2003-04-03 Long Beach, CA
| Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? said by Edge1 :said by hopeflicker :said by BF69 :You probably think download a copy of your favorite movie or TV show via torrent is legal don't you? I find it equivalent to recording it to DVR or Tape. My isp/tv provider is Verizon. Why should it matter if the ones and zeros are sent to my DVR or computer? I'd just like to point out that this is quality work  (the graphic). Bet you didnt know i was a full time artist by day, did ya  -- Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. | |
|
 |  |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by supergirl :I believe it was in the NY Times a few years ago.I've went to Torrent sites. All I saw was illegal stuff. So, I bet the 99% of file-sharing is illegal is probably correct. Yeah, we can really believe the NY Times.  | |
|
 |   Dogfather Premium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | I'd believe it. Take a look at any file sharing search engine and see what the top results are. Every one I've seen, the first few pages of results are all copyrighted, stuff (either music, movies or software). | |
|
 |  |   hopeflicker Capitalism breeds greed Premium join:2003-04-03 Long Beach, CA
| Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? Let's just go ahead and "believe" or "have a feeling" because of what we see.
Good thing we dont run our country this way. no, wait... -- Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. | |
|
 |  |  |   Dogfather Premium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? Yeah, don't use common sense or anything. Deny reality and claim that file-sharing isn't primarily piracy traffic.
It's a shame we don't run the country using more common sense. | |
|
 |  |  |  |   tiger72 SexaT duorP Premium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO clubs: | Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? Go with yer gut!
How bout them Dubya Em Dees? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10 Youngstown, OH
| said by Dogfather :It's a shame we don't run the country using more common sense. Clearly.
Just because you saw a few sites that have some copyrighted material on them does not mean you can claim that most file sharing is illegal. Just because you do not know of the websites or have only seen one of them that have non-copyrighted material does not mean you can claim that either wise. When you come back with actual research done by a reputable organization using sound research methods (not the "Look, a couple of illegal file sharing sites, all of them must be illegal!" method) I will believe you.
P.S. - Running a search for "legal file sharing" will not give you a list of all legal file sharing sites. Sometimes -- just sometimes -- it takes a bit more than Googling a search term to find what you are looking for. --
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   Dogfather Premium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? A few sites? Try all of the most popular ones.
Ever seen an electron? No? I guess by your logic they must not exist. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10 Youngstown, OH
| Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? said by Dogfather :A few sites? Try all of the most popular ones. Does that equate to ALL file sharing? No.
said by Dogfather :Ever seen an electron? No? I guess by your logic they must not exist. Noone really knows for sure, but at least there is enough SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to show that most-likely they do exist.
What scientific evidence is there that all (or most) file sharing is illegal? A few readily-disproved statistics in a few hardly-scientific newspapers or magazines? A couple of Joes browsing the internet and making claims based on their viewing of less than 0.01% of the internet? --
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Dogfather Premium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Boogeyman Drive it like you stole it Premium join:2002-12-17 Huntsville, AL | Re: What % of File-sharing is Legal? The funny part is, I'd bet around half of the "illegal" content isnt actually the "illegal" file it claims to be. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10 Youngstown, OH
| said by Dogfather :Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. Lets agree to disagree and let the users decide. --
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   swedishfriend
@sbcglobal.net
| said by Dogfather :A few sites? Try all of the most popular ones. Ever seen an electron? No? I guess by your logic they must not exist. electrons don't exist. They are an abstract concept used in physics to represent certain observations. The underlying nature of the physical universe is analogue (waves, vbrations, etc..) not bits of matter. -Karl | |
|
 |  |  |  |  jsouth Jsouth
join:2000-12-12 Wichita, KS | Actually spam is the primary traffic. | |
|
 |  |   TamaraB Question The Current Paradigm Premium join:2000-11-08 Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Dogfather : ... the first few pages of results are all copyrighted, stuff ... How do you know it is copyrighted stuff? You must have downloaded something, played it, and saw it was. Right? Hmmmmm so you violated copyright laws? There is NO OTHER way to identify copyright infringement.
These "guesstimates" of illegal P2P use are meaningless suppositions, which can't withstand legal scrutiny.
Bob -- Motor Vessel - Tamara B. 43' Long-Range Trawler Cape Elizebeth ME. See her Here. | |
|
 |   foolonthenet
@jillyred.net
| here's a fact supergirl,
bit torrent was created for bootleggers, by a fan of booleg concert recordings. it was created to help bootleggers share LEGALLY recorded concerts with fans of music, and other "tapers" (bootleggers).
there is still a very highly active community of "traders" who share LEGALLY recorded concerts amongst fans. what percentage this is, who cares? honestly it's a bunch of people who actually care about sharing something they've recorded with people who actually care about listening to it. look up archive.org or bt.etree.org sometime. legal recordings. lots of people know about these places 
torrents are also used by world of warcraft and MANY other games for updates/patches/installers/etc. there are just as many legal uses for this as there are illegal uses.
here's another thought about "file sharing" you're doing it right now. you just shared a file by viewing this post. you share files when you copy anything anywhere. better stop the whole internet. better stop all communications now. if it can be viewed, heard, or both, it can be copied. should we outlaw microphones? video cameras? tacos? ...wait, you cant copy a taco digitally... yet...
I am going to state that 99% of all file sharing is perfectly legal. I'm probably not the first to state this either. Wow. copy a word document from laptop to desktop? wow, that's file sharing. copy a news article to your browser? sharing. copy anything from one system to another and it could be considered sharing.
sometimes I wonder why people can forget the most obvious things right in front of their faces, and then I remember that most people can't tell the difference between what they actually think and what they're told to think  | |
|
 |  |  |
 |   Nightshade sic semper tyrannis Premium join:2002-05-26 Salem, OR | There has been no studies done on what percentage of file sharing is legal and what is not legal. So it's all conjecture and assumptions.
The fact is that simply put, no one knows. -- True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
|
 |  Kearnstd Elf Wizard Premium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ
| id ask the MPAA/RIAA to show me proof that if piracy went away tommorrow that prices would drop to compensate for the fact they dont need to fight it.
nope prices wouldnt fall, infact they would skyrocket because they wouldnt have to compete with free. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Somewhere between 1% and 100%. | |
|
 bgraham
join:2001-03-15 Smithtown, NY
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | Here we go again We keep hearing the same crap. 80% of all network traffic is p2p copyrighted material. The internet is costing the entertainment industry a gazillion dollars a year in lost revenue.
Lots of words with little truth IMO. Numbers put together by the publicity department probably.
Frankly I could not care less about p2p because I don't use it, but why should ISP's be the internet police. | |
|
 |   hopeflicker Capitalism breeds greed Premium join:2003-04-03 Long Beach, CA
| Re: Here we go again said by bgraham :We keep hearing the same crap. 80% of all network traffic is p2p copyrighted material. The internet is costing the entertainment industry a gazzilion dollars a year in lost revenue. Lots of words with little truth IMO. Yeah, we know how these organizations like to make up numbers. And it's been proven that they have made up numbers before. -- Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. | |
|
 |  |  Warmachine99
join:2006-03-20 Pleasant Prairie, WI | Re: Here we go again Just remember: 83% of all statistics are made up.
Just like that one is. | |
|
 |   Doctor Four My other vehicle is a TARDIS Premium join:2000-09-05 Dallas, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by bgraham :Lots of words with little truth IMO. Numbers put together by the publicity department probably. There are lies, damned lies, and then there are entertainment industry piracy statistics.
I swear sometimes they pull numbers out of their a$$es. -- "The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
| |
|
  hopeflicker Capitalism breeds greed Premium join:2003-04-03 Long Beach, CA
| That will work mandatory filtering laws passed on an international scale.
LOL, WTF is an international law? silly, silly corrupt organization.  -- Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. | |
|
  Jason Levine Premium join:2001-07-13 USA
| Wow. I agree with Verizon This is a rare day indeed, but I agree with the Verizon representative.
Can I even realistically assume that I could do those kinds of things? I'm not sure I could if I wanted to, but I don't think that's our job. Even if they wanted to police the Internet for copyright violations, they could never fully succeed. There is just no way for them to tell which content is copyrighted *AND* being transferred without proper permission. Remember, content could be transferred without permission but be public domain or be copyrighted and transferred with permission. Also remember that "content" could be music, movies, books, software, photos, etc. So it's not just a simple matter of screening for audio or video files.
And even if Verizon decided to put a filter in place, they would lose their Common Carrier status and open themselves to lawsuits over the pirated materials that they didn't block. Someone downloaded a photo of mine and shared it via their FIOS connection? Sue Verizon, they have bigger pockets and should have filtered it. (For clarification, that's what a lawyer's reasoning would be, not mine.)
Verizon's smart to ignore the MPAA and focus on being a pipe provider. As a content provider, it's the MPAA's job to find where pirated material is coming from and make the effort to take it offline (via DMCA notice most likely). They just want to shift the cost off of them to someone else. -- -Jason Levine Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
|
 |  See 8 replies to this post |
|
  rchandra Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan Premium join:2000-11-09 14225-2105 clubs:
| They don't want to filter...Posh...Posh I say They don't want to filter...so why is it Verizon customers can't run a standard Web server? They certainly filter out TCP port 80.
But what the speaker said is in essence true. With redirection services available (WebHop comes to mind), www.mydomain.net:80 becomes www2.mydomain:8800, problem sort of solved. Often, it doesn't take a whole ton of technology to steer around such silliness. -- English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.
Jeopardy! replies REALLY suck! | |
|
 |   booticon
join:2007-07-31 East Lyme, CT | Re: They don't want to filter...Posh...Posh I say Apples and oranges. Don't have much first-hand experience with Verizon on the data side of things, but read your AUP re: running servers. | |
|
 |  |   rchandra Stargate S G-1 And Atlantis Fan Premium join:2000-11-09 14225-2105 clubs:
| Re: They don't want to filter...Posh...Posh I say Stay on target. The discussion is about their stated desire not to filter yet they do filter. What the AUP says or does not say, or should or should not say, is a separate discussion entirely.
And it's not my AUP anymore . I used to be a DSL customer, and a friend of mine is saying it applies to his FiOS. In fact, I was a DSL customer way back when the AUP allowed (personal) servers, and tcp/80 was not filtered. Then some big worm started making the rounds, and they slapped that one on there to try to limit its spread (and that actually worked fairly well...for worm control anyway).
Besides...many ISPs' ToS/AUP state "no servers of any kind," which is an extremely miguided statement to make. A server very well could mean software that replies to requests. Ergo, if you ARP for my MAC address, if I hold to the letter of the policy, I can't reply and still remain under the agreement. I can't reply to a single ICMP such as "ping," I can't even send an "X" unreachable ICMP message with X in (port, network, protocol) as that would be responding to a request...or serving. Hooboy...not a single point-to-point chat, IRC DCC or CTCP, no VoIP...the typical statement is silly, and in my experience, rarely enforced. -- English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.
Jeopardy! replies REALLY suck! | |
|
 |
 |  See 20 replies to this post |
|
 |
 |  See 29 replies to this post |
|
 ossito16
join:2004-07-31 Whiting, IN
·RCN CABLE
| P2P, gaming, and pron I believe the internet is driven by these three things. What other purpose would there be to have high speed internet? I guess there is the occasional poorly designed website overloaded with flash. Take away these 3 things I would rather sign up for some $10-$25 dsl package. Even RCN offers low speed 1.5mbps for $16.95 (1yr contract). These companies no where there bread is buttered, are they ready to lose $40+ dollars a month because MPAA, RIAA, and there collective fanboys are crying. | |
|
 |   soulcatch
@cox.net
| Re: P2P, gaming, and pron Exactly, I never use p2p torrent sites, but I do use p2p. Blizzard uses the technology to update World of Warcraft for instance. If ISPs are going to start policing and/or throttling my connection. I will either jump ship to one that doesn't or downgrade my service. No sense paying for the premiun tier if they are just going to slow it anyways.
Also, with the exception of verizon, most ISPs need to worry more about capacity then P2P file traders. ABC, FOX, Netflix, HULU, you tube are all offering tv shows and /or movies for download. All are 100% legal to use. All are very bandwidth intensive (HULU is pretty minor, and you tube hardly uses any, but both will probably be going HD before long). Most ISP have been raking in the cash while watching thier networks degrade. | |
|
  koma3504 Advocate Premium join:2004-06-22 North Richland Hills, TX | Simple If you want to free up capacity do something about all the 3l1t3 h4ck3rs and botnets. in my Opinion if they would require All isp's to filter ports 1024-1030 and 135-139 this would then just drop those packets and free up capacity. | |
|
 |   Unit649 I B U, Who U B? Premium join:2000-01-22 Stockton, CA | Re: Simple Yeah but then tomorrow they would just move to 1031-1040 or something.
Its not like they couldn't recode it to change ports.  | |
|
  Sarah Premium,ExMod 2002-05 join:2001-01-09 Cambridge, MA clubs:
| *Whose* paying customers? quote: The entertainment industry on Thursday continued efforts to convince ISPs they should filter pirated material from their networks. "If they can reduce some of the infringing content, then there will be more capacity for their paying customers," insists MPAA CTO John Williams.
Last time I checked, pirates ARE paying customers of the ISP. They're pirating music, not cable service. -- Killers and liars welcome | |
|
  MysticGogeta The Robot Devil Premium join:2005-03-14 League City, TX clubs:
·Comcast
| Yeah lets lissten to the MPAA there doing a great job. How ridicloius they would all jump ship to another ISP with the backbone to say no. I see no problem with piracy these days because theres hardly any content worth stealing anymore. If record and movie companys would put more thought and had a better distributation plan for the movies/music (Look at iTunes) the pirating would be seriously reduced. I can't even get my self to spend 20 dollars on a movie I only want to see once. Not like we need that money for gas. -- Team Discovery-Join the fight | |
|
 |
 |   Doctor Four My other vehicle is a TARDIS Premium join:2000-09-05 Dallas, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: buzzword, nothing more How about the capacity of the space between the ears of the **AA's propagandists, CEOs and PR Droids? There's plenty of that. -- "The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
| |
|
 backness
join:2005-07-08 K2P OW2
| MPAA take a logic class I think we should deal with the real issue here, The MPAA is saying that capacity for "PAYING CUSTOMERS" will magically INCREASE if piracy were stopped. Too me this is false logic, first, Capacity will remain the same. Second, People who surf the net are PAYING customers, they are just too smart to pay silly groups like these the exorborant fees that the charge.
I don't even really see why this is on the front page. Its just more lies and misinformation sent to us by groups such as the MPAAA | |
|
 |   TamaraB Question The Current Paradigm Premium join:2000-11-08 Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: MPAA take a logic class said by backness :I think we should deal with the real issue here ... Indeed! I don't think even the MPAA really believes it's own propaganda. The real issue here is that this P2P technology, coupled with ever increasing end-user bandwidth, has made the MPAA obsolete. They are out of a job when copyright holders discover a better and more profitable way to distribute their work.
Bob -- Motor Vessel - Tamara B. 43' Long-Range Trawler Cape Elizebeth ME. See her Here. | |
|
 |   BF69
join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN
| said by backness :I think we should deal with the real issue here, The MPAA is saying that capacity for "PAYING CUSTOMERS" will magically INCREASE if piracy were stopped. Too me this is false logic, first, Capacity will remain the same. Second, People who surf the net are PAYING customers, they are just too smart to pay silly groups like these the exorborant fees that the charge. I don't even really see why this is on the front page. Its just more lies and misinformation sent to us by groups such as the MPAAA While I agree that if all the pirating stopped and all the torrent users started to use XBL or Itunes the MPAA wouldn't care about capacity issues.
Also a person surfing the net is not a PAYING CUSTOMER when it comes to content just because they pay for an internet connection. Your monthly ISP bill is for INTERNET ACCESS. that is what you are paying for. Just because I buy a car doesn't mean the gas is free.
Just because people think $15 for DVD is to high doesn't give them a right to steal one from a torrent site. Either pay for it or don't watch it. PERIOD. Just because I can't afford a Porche doesn't mean it's Ok to steal one from the dealership.
Also I'm tired of the "I download to stick it to the MPAA/RIAA and support the artists" crap. Honestly who thinks that way? People download because they want something and they don't want to pay for it or pay as much as being charged. That's called stealing no matter how you "justify" it. And the fact you are justifying it means you know it's wrong. | |
|
 |  |  backness
join:2005-07-08 K2P OW2
| Re: MPAA take a logic class I'm not justifying the stealing end of things here...
You are caught in the same logic trap.
They are arguing that capacity is a problem due to piracy, which infers that capacity problems can be solved by reducing piracy. Their objective is to have everyone contiune to pass the same data, just with them getting a portion of the proceeds. Thats why I said they need a logic class. Whoever wrote this speech is mixing issues. | |
|
 |  |   dadkins Can you do Blu? Premium,MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA
·Comcast
2 edits | said by BF69 :Just because people think $15 for DVD is to high doesn't give them a right to steal one from a torrent site. #1 The file is not at the torrent site. Torrent sites are listing services.
#2 It's not stealing, it's copying. The original file never leaves.
said by BF69 : Just because I can't afford a Porche doesn't mean it's Ok to steal one from the dealership. Sorry friend, but that is flawed! If I *COPY* a DVD from someones computer, the file is still there. I didn't take it away.
If you steal a Porsche, it is no longer at the dealership. You have taken it away.
If you were able to make an exact copy of that Porsche, then your analogy would have weight. Currently, you cannot duplicate that Porsche. _____________________________________________________________ FOR EVERYONE:
See image.
See David Copying a DVD file. If David was to move that copy... to his other computer, would the original file still be there?
Yes! 
Now, if "Friend X" was to logon to this computer and Copy one of my DVD files to his computer, would my original file still be intact?
Yes! 
Do you know why? Can it be that "Friend X" didn't steal it? Can it be that "Friend X" simply made a copy of my file?
Welcome to Digital Copying 101!  -- Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
 |
 kd6cae P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27 Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| How would one tell if data is legal or not? With all this talk of the MPAA demanding filters on ISP networks, I can't help but wonder, how the hell would they know if content is legal or not? Let's take some personal examples. I have a copy of Windows XP home edition which I purchased. I want to back it up to an off site location so that should I lose my original CD or it gets damaged, I can still retrieve my disc if I ever need to. Now is it so wrong to transfer the Windows XP disc via the internet to my off site backup storage facility? I'm not sharing it, however I do need to transfer the data over the internet just as if I were sharing with thousands of people. The same would hold true for my CD collection. Some of the CD's I have one can't even find anymore, so I want to be sure all my discs are backed up off site, in case I need to replace them later for any reason, but in order to do that, I need to get the data to it's destination, and that means transmitting it via the internet! The internet should be just like any network, no data should be blocked in any way. If someone wants to question why I was sending an ISO of Windows XP across the internet, they're welcome to. If they want to know why I sent those mp3s across, go ahead and ask me. But don't just claim any off site online backup I want to make of something is illegal just because I want to send the data across the internet, in order to back up my files in a totally separate location from where I am located! Is that so much to ask? What will it take for the MPAA/RIAA to finally realize adopting to new technology will help you in the end. I'm sure as heck not going to pay for something so restrictive I can't use it on every computer/player I have, but if the industry would sell us mp3's or the like, I'd be all over it! It's that simple. Wake up industries! | |
|
  CapinPete Premium join:2002-12-23 Loxahatchee, FL
| No logic quote: If they can reduce some of the infringing content, then there will be more capacity for their paying customers
I might be COMPLETELY off base here but aren't the people who are downloading stuff illegally also "paying customers" of the ISPs? WTF? -- »www.thegng.org -- Adult Gaming Community (not necessarily mature =P) | |
|
  DOStradamus MVM join:2003-11-04 Santa Rosa, CA | "What planet are they on, anyway?" Men are from Mars Women are from Venus
The MPAA is from Uranus!
-NK | |
|
  Dogg Premium join:2003-06-11 Belleville, IL | they need to refocus They should concentrate on spending their resources on marketing and new technology instead of wasting money trying to prevent peeps from downloading something there aren't likely to purchase anyway. -- Google is your Friend | |
|
 jbcg
join:2001-09-15 Milwaukee, WI
| Cross purposes The RIAA figures suit damages as the cost of all the music the pirate gave away. They report their financial losses due to piracy as the number of pirated songs traversing the internet times what they could have sold the song for. The implication here has always been that if everyone would just start paying for their music like nice people, the RIAA would reap 100% of the profits from every music transfer that's now going on.
But now, while trying to seduce the telecoms into this tar pit of content filtering, they say if pirate transfers were weeded out leaving only legitimate transactions it would free up considerable bandwidth. Hmmmm . . .
So basically, once starved by ISP censoring (sorry, filtering), all these music pirates are just going to say "oh well," rush down to Sam Goody and start buying physical media? Is that it? Nope! In the RIAA's wet-dream scenario where all these (tech-savvy, MP3-player-owning) pirates throw up their hands and go legit, they'd flock to music sites like Amazon MP3 and iTunes.
The impact on the internet under that perfect scenario (remember, it's the scenario on which they've been basing damages and reported losses for years now) would be basically net zero. But the impact to the telecom would be cash negative because now they are supporting all this sophisticated content filtering infrastructure that has to differentiate between a legitimate iTunes song and the ripped one I'm streaming between my media server and my desktop at work.
And, of course, someone's going to have to pay for all of this filtering, so we can expect the price of internet access AND music to increase along the way. And, at least nominally, internet latency will increase and thruput will decline. Who wins in this scenario? The telecoms? Music fans? Paying internet users? Nope. Only the RIAA. Typically RIAA strategy: force a win-lose-lose-lose proposition. If these guys had been president of the US in 2001 we would have just nuked Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran and North Korea, and maybe France just for good measure, and just taken all their stuff.
The media industry associations have underestimated the intelligence and patience of their customers for years, but now you have to ask "how stupid do they think the telecoms are?"
Sadly, as soon as the media associations make it monetarily worth their while and threaten big lawsuits the telecoms will fall in line. Look at what happened to the telecoms' privacy policies in the wake of 9/11. Look for big money transfers from media industry associations to ISPs (paid from the proceeds from lawsuits against naive little girls and befuddled grandmas, among others) in the future. | |
|
  jaa Premium,MVM join:2000-06-13
·Optimum Online
·Vonage
| The title of the article is 100% false An ISPs capacity is a function of their plant and is finite. It cannot be changed by altering the traffic traveling over the network.
By filtering pirated material from their networks, they could make more of their finite capacity available for other uses.
Good luck figuring out how to ban torrents that are pirated material while allowing legitimate material. -- NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. | |
|
 |   verzonnen
@teksavvy.com
| Re: The title of the article is 100% false Sure they can reduce the amount of traffic over their wires by filtering, but I am paying for an x amount of bandwith, I expect to get the service I agreed to pay an y amount for! Maybe I should reduce the payment accordingly? (For what it is worth I do not use p2p applications, nor is downloading here in Canada for personal use, illegal)
There are lots of ways to get around the content filtering even if they tried, the net result is likely to be that they will get even more traffic on the wires, as people will start using encryption and tunnels.
Besides if some company wants to start filtering "illegal" content, I will know who to sue the next time I get spam/viruses for failing to filter that 
Any army (except maybe "the salvation army") is by definition a terrorist organization. | |
|
 |
|
 |