×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BitTorrent Use Up 24% Since November

Soulskill posted about 6 years ago | from the not-what-they-wanted-to-hear dept.

Media 239

dingalig writes "It looks as though the MPAA's fight against The Pirate Bay and other BitTorrent sites isn't going very well. Ars Technica reports that BitTorrent traffic is up by 24% since before the holidays. 'BitTorrent traffic spiked over the December holidays. After a peaking at almost 12.5 million downloaders on the 200 most popular files, traffic dropped at the beginning of January — about the time that school started up again. But one figure that will prove alarming to the content creation industry is that the numbers are higher now than they used to be. "The baseline has been elevated," notes [BigChampagne CEO Eric] Garland. "Not only did the spike happen, but the bar was raised."'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

239 comments

WGA Strike? (5, Insightful)

LostMyBeaver (1226054) | about 6 years ago | (#23114494)

Sounds like people started downloading more films when the TV shows started running out.

I'm guessing this has more to do with the fact that when there's nothing on TV to watch, people are more likely to download a film.

MPAA should sue the WGA

Re:WGA Strike? (5, Funny)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 6 years ago | (#23114518)

I only download for the articles...

Re:WGA Strike? (4, Funny)

Digestromath (1190577) | about 6 years ago | (#23115022)

Yes... 700mb .avi articles about "Teenage Lesbians" and thier "Raunchy Shenanigans Vol.11." Must be a fantastic read judging from the abstract.

Re:WGA Strike? (4, Funny)

mutube (981006) | about 6 years ago | (#23115416)

Yes... 700mb .avi articles about "Teenage Lesbians" and thier "Raunchy Shenanigans Vol.11." Must be a fantastic read judging from the abstract.

Link please.

Re:WGA Strike? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23115166)

Yeah, no more slashdot effect, the more people want the site, the faster it downloads via bittorrent.

Also did you notice. the pages are much richer on bittorrent than on regular web. They got sound, moving pictures and what not... I miss the comments though.

Re:WGA Strike? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114534)

MPAA should sue the WGA
I'd sure like to get rid of that nasty... oh, the other WGA

Re:WGA Strike? (3, Insightful)

icsx (1107185) | about 6 years ago | (#23115314)

I'm guessing this has more to do with the fact that when there's nothing on TV to watch, people are more likely to download a film.
Or Maybe they downloaded those TV-shows instead from TV? They air mainly on US only so rest of the world gets to wait from 6 months to 2 years usually until they see the same episodes, unless, of course they use bittorrent.

Mainstream now... (5, Insightful)

ArIck (203) | about 6 years ago | (#23114526)

With all the publicity TPB et al has gotten with those ridiculous actions of MPAA, BitTorrent is now a mainstream. The same thing happened with Napster and the same thing would happen with private torrent sites when MPAA starts attacking them.

Re:Mainstream now... (5, Insightful)

Chief Wongoller (1081431) | about 6 years ago | (#23114780)

Actually, bittorrent is not yet a mainstream, but it will be. An average of 8.2 million downloaders at any one time may seem a lot until you consider that there are nearly 350 million broadband subscribers worldwide (wikkepedia). So only 2.4 percent are downloading at any one time. This percentage can only grow and surely will grow considerably, not because people want stuff for free (but that is nice), but because only bittorent can truly let us watch what we want when we want. Who wants to go back to old tv, that dictates to you when you watch, when watching bittorent files is so more flexible? Not me. I'm really suprised that more people don't use it, but I know as soon as people try it, theyr'e hooked and there's no going back. The tide will be unstoppable and those folk blind to its inevitability are just a bunch of Canutes.

Re:Mainstream now... (5, Insightful)

ArIck (203) | about 6 years ago | (#23114828)

BitTorrent is as mainstream as YouTube is. With 100 million views a day at YouTube (wikipedia), it averages to less than 8.2 million at any one time making BT more popular than YouTube.

And yes I agree with you.... BT could only go up

Re:Mainstream now... (4, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 6 years ago | (#23115100)

Youtube is just a bunch of crap now. If their execs were smart then they would make deals with the content providers instead of bending over backwards in the face of every takedown notice. They could improve video quality and have a free section and a pay section. They could offer bulk or single-watch streaming packages or bill based on monthly bandwidth. People are willing to pay for a decent, easily accesable solution('Torrent rocks but it's usually far from convenient). People would pay a little extra to not have to have 20 different accounts with 20 different providers. Until somebody comes up with a feasible multimedia streaming or download solution, I'll be firing up the 'Torrent.

Re:Mainstream now... (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | about 6 years ago | (#23115388)

They could improve video quality and have a free section and a pay section

This typically evolves into a "pay only" section, where the focus gets drawn away from the "free" zone as it's not paying off, they'll try to milk more money from the user.

Youtube is just a bunch of crap now.

I thought the concept behind "youtube" was that the user is the content uploader. Hence it getting as polluted. However there are gems of movies and clips on youtube (in my case, I find some documentaries and lectures well worth watching). I agree the whole "community" and "viral (*me too*) public video communication" is crap. I don't like it either; so I don't spend time watching. The search in YouTube is intelligent enough to not offer me to watch this "crap" if I'm not searching for it.

If you mean the quality of the videos are "crappy", then it basically depends on the quality of the users' equipment. YouTube would be working at a HD content delivery [techcrunch.com] .

Re:Mainstream now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23115394)

The real problem with youtube now though is people re-uploading mixes of videos with the original title and description. I used to use it for things like robot chicken and what not. But I can't be bothered since they're all remixes now.

Maybe that's their intent, but like heck I'd rush out to buy a box set just to see some action figuramation.

Re:Mainstream now... (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | about 6 years ago | (#23114848)

So you're saying that this could be the year of BitTorrent on the desktop?

Re:Mainstream now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114902)

funny because it's true and ironic. holy fuck there's soda on my keyboard i laughed so suddenly and hard.

Re:Mainstream now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23115478)

Not until Netcraft confirms it.

Gotta love statistics. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114544)

I wonder just how closely they selected the data on this study. More and more Linux distros are being torrented as are larger open source apps like OpenOffice. In fact, you can't get a LiveDVD outside of the torrent world right now...and rightly so. It's just more efficient that way. Let's also not forget all the companies out there like Blizzard that roll out software via torrenting. That leads me to wonder if they are just looking at BitTorrent traffic or ALL P2P combined.

Statistics can be manipulated to prove a point...87% of all people know that.

Re:Gotta love statistics. (4, Informative)

FoolsGold (1139759) | about 6 years ago | (#23114570)

If they're counting all torrents, then yes the content/patches of WoW would certainly count for a fair bit.

But you'd have to be rather naive to think Linux distros and other legal content (not including WoW) are in any way a measurable part of the total torrent traffic. I have no stats of course (this is Slashdot), except to say that whenever you look at the top listings of torrents being hosted on say TPB, I can see TV shows, Movies, Games and Music. No Linux.

Re:Gotta love statistics. (1)

jd (1658) | about 6 years ago | (#23114670)

You're right, but I'm guessing the original poster's idea is that if the author of the statistics doesn't say how they are calculating the numbers, we don't know what the numbers actually say or how we should adjust them to adjust for non-BitTorrent traffic, legitimate traffic and undetected traffic. Probably the adjustments are going to be small, but there's no obvious way to prove that or even to set upper and lower bounds.

Re:Gotta love statistics. (4, Informative)

richie2000 (159732) | about 6 years ago | (#23114702)

That could simply be because Linux distros don't need to use TPB since they have their own trackers.

Re:Gotta love statistics. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114744)

"except to say that whenever you look at the top listings of torrents being hosted on say TPB, I can see TV shows, Movies, Games and Music. No Linux."

We have our own trackers dumbass so of course it's not going to put a dent in the listings of TPB. While I wouldn't for the life of me pretend that Linux would be in the top 10 torrents it still is a big part of bittorrent use. Most linux users I know get their new distribution that way.

Re:Gotta love statistics. (2, Insightful)

FoolsGold (1139759) | about 6 years ago | (#23114826)

OK, so Linux distros are most commonly obtained through torrents. I happen to agree with that.

But Linux users are so incredibly insignificant to the OVERALL amount of torrent traffic, that this fact has no relevance.

Dumbass? I think you're more of a dumbfuck here mate.

Re:Gotta love statistics. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114926)

When Ubuntu Hardy Heron is released, please check the torrent tracker statistics [ubuntu.com] and record the overall transferred data (in GB) vs time (say every 5 minutes).

I did this for Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon and was seeing somewhere in the vicinity of 8gbps of bandwidth being used by the Ubuntu torrents for a while after the release. Talking to a member of the official release engineering team at Ubuntu, I was informed that HTTP/FTP mirrors were taking loads in excess of 5gbps as well.

Remember that these are only ISO images (good for new installations) and don't count the amount of bandwidth used for upgrading existing systems. And remember all the other Linux distributions as well.

Re:Gotta love statistics. (3, Insightful)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 6 years ago | (#23115050)

Add up the numbers for the top 500 illegal torrents on Pirate Bay and all the other torrent sites and I bet you'll get a much bigger total bandwidth than this. Popular TV shows and movies can have tens or even hundreds of thousands of downloaders. And that is happening 24/7, not just on a release.

Please, it's ridiculous to claim that the majority of torrent bandwidth is used for legal content. And it's pointless too. No one from the MPAA/RIAA is going to come one here and stop harassing pirates just because some people use the same protocol to download Linux. They don't care about that, what they do is to leach on the illegal torrents they do care about and then try to get the ISPs to tell them who was using the IP addresses they saw downloading.

Re:Gotta love statistics. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114940)

"I believe in a fact you just were disputing, but I have no proof, therefore I will call you a dumbfuck."

Re:Gotta love statistics. (1)

pipatron (966506) | about 6 years ago | (#23115252)

whenever you look at the top listings of torrents being hosted on say TPB

Ok, now let's take another popular tracker, say, ubuntu.com... Hm.. 100% linux distributions!

Of course you only get pirated material on The Pirate Bay! If you have content that's non-controversial, you put it up yourself.

Re:Gotta love statistics. (1)

elh_inny (557966) | about 6 years ago | (#23115404)

Well, morals aside, many Power Users, FXPers and People of the Scene (TM) are using using up massive amounts of traffic without actually ever watching the content that flows through their servers, so the amount of traffic can not be tied to increase in piracy and certainly not to increased losses.
It might only mean that some people are getting what they want faster and in higher quality.
x264 releases - 4.5GB, ale slowly replacing the xVid releases, which were 700MB, hence the growth in traffic.

Remember kids: Data must flow (TM).

Like churchill said (5, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about 6 years ago | (#23114682)

I don't trust any statistic that I didn't make up myself.

didn't the same thing happen with napster? (1)

thermian (1267986) | about 6 years ago | (#23115110)

I seem to recall that napster was a minority sport until it got media attention, then suddenly everyone I knew was using it .
I was at uni at the time, and probably unique in not knowing about filesharing till napster was being forced to close.

Re:didn't the same thing happen with napster? (1)

MttJocy (873799) | about 6 years ago | (#23115352)

Sounds like a form of the Streisand effect to me, attempts to sensor content result in the exact opposite, namely drawing attention to, popularizing and increasing the availability of the content, granted it usually referred to a specific piece of content, in this case however by attacking a tracker site linking to large amounts of content they have managed to create this effect on all the content supplied by the site as well as actually enhance the public awareness of the protocol itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [wikipedia.org]

Victimless (4, Insightful)

Repton (60818) | about 6 years ago | (#23114548)

"We need to highlight that [copyright infringement] is not a victimless crime and take appropriate actions."

Anyone know any victims? Artists or creators whose works are widely pirated but who struggle to make a living?

Re:Victimless (1)

QuantumG (50515) | about 6 years ago | (#23114612)

Lately I've been downloading Gilligan's Island.

Only people I'm ripping off are those Time-Warner-Life scumbags who will only sell me the DVDs if I sign up to a "book of the month" style subscription..

there you have it - a victim (4, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | about 6 years ago | (#23114912)

Lately I've been downloading Gilligan's Island.
You should be ashamed of yourself. If it wasn't for your downloading, Mary Ann from Gilligan's Island would never have turned to drugs. Thanks to you and your ilk, she was busted smoking pot in her car [ktvb.com] , no doubt contemplating how illegal downloading has destroyed her life.

Re:Victimless (5, Insightful)

mollymoo (202721) | about 6 years ago | (#23114794)

You seem to be implying that depriving someone of something doesn't make them a victim as long as it doesn't leave them struggling to survive. Which is of course complete and utter bullshit.

Re:Victimless (5, Insightful)

PeterKraus (1244558) | about 6 years ago | (#23114842)

That is true, though, only if we accept premise "sharing is immoral" as true. Isn't it worse to deprive your friend of something you have, than deprive multinational companies of money they are ripping off authors and are based on twisted laws of copyrights and patents anyway?

Re:Victimless (2, Insightful)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 6 years ago | (#23115070)

Sharing is moral if you own something. Sharing some you don't own and who's owner doesn't want it shared because they want to charge people for using it is not moral.

How would you feel if technology made it possible for people to share for free something you used to sell to them individually?

Re:Victimless (4, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | about 6 years ago | (#23115174)

Ideas are owned by society. They are what make up our culture. Sometimes we, as a society, have seen fit to let their creator exercise some limited degree of control over them. That does not mean any one person can own an idea any more than they can own a sunset.

Re:Victimless (2, Insightful)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 6 years ago | (#23115280)

That's very poetic. But what if you were someone who lived by selling your ideas?

I'm not - I sell services to people. But I'd like to be someone who sells software. And people that make songs or software or movies do it partly because they want to make money out of it. So if you start taking their stuff and not paying them and you break the law whilst doing so, you shouldn't be too surprised if they sic their lawyers on you.

Re:Victimless (1)

evanbd (210358) | about 6 years ago | (#23115178)

While I agree with you wholeheartedly, the claim that people are sharing with a few thousand of their closest friends on the internet rings a bit hollow.

Oblig. Office Space Reference (1, Flamebait)

stupidflanders (1230894) | about 6 years ago | (#23115224)

Theft is theft. Period. If you don't like it, change the law.

PETER
So when the subroutine compounds the interest, right, it uses all these extra decimals places that just get rounded off. So we just simplify the whole thing and we just round it down and drop the remainder into an account that we own.

JOANNA
So you're stealing.

PETER
Ah, no. No. You don't understand. It's, uh, very complicated. It's, uh, it's, it's aggregate so I'm talking about fractions of a cent that, uh, over time, they add up to a lot.

JOANNA
Ok. So you're gonna make a lot of money, right?

PETER
Yeah.

JOANNA
Ok. That's not yours?

PETER
Well, it, it becomes ours.

JOANNA
How's that not stealing?

PETER
I don't think, I don't think I'm explaining this very well.

Re:Victimless (1)

Schiphol (1168667) | about 6 years ago | (#23115230)

Your answer implies that: It is true that depriving someone of something makes them a victim even if it doesn't leave them struggling to survive, only if we accept premise "sharing is immoral" as true. I can't see the relation between consequent and antecedent there.

Re:Victimless (3, Interesting)

MttJocy (873799) | about 6 years ago | (#23115428)

Seams to me that copyright was and is doomed to failure on the simple grounds of human nature, human culture exists exactly because humans enjoy sharing ideas, creativity influences etc that have meaning to them with others this is how influences get spread within a culture and become identifiable attributes of that culture without that aspect of human nature culture and society itself would completely fail to function properly neither can happen if influences and ideas are not shared between the members of that society.

It is only natural that people were and still do have a natural desire to share those influences that have an impact on them with those around them, it is natural to want those in your social circle to be able to share in those experiences that feel significant and/or influential to yourself so thus any creative work which has the ability to influence people in any meaningful way are also going to become things that people want to share socially with others.

Failing to understand this is what is causing content providers to alienate society itself, trying to stop a society sharing cultural influences generally tends to anger that society for many people trying to tell them they cannot share a good meaningful book with those they are close to is much like trying to tell people they can't share any idea that they find meaningful (ie it is like trying to block freedom of speech and expression, which people are strongly against). The content providers are attacking an aspect of human nature and culture which has grown and been ingrained into the consciousness of every human society for thousands of years and they suddenly expect that they are going to fight such a deep human behavior?

Interestingly however they do seam to realize this about something like sharing a book with a friend but not where it concerns a movie or a song, the internet etc, the problem is it is part of the same human desire to share cultural influences with others which creates the former, anyone that does not understand the human desire even need to share cultural influences with others is doomed to fail, thousands of years of precedent are against you and history of that magnitude is near impossible to defeat no matter how much you scream shout and kick your feet about it.

Re:Victimless (1)

pembo13 (770295) | about 6 years ago | (#23114862)

I doh know. I disagree. Taxes deprive me of cash. I don't really consider myself a victim to the tax man though.. even though I am paying three taxes (/me grumbles)

Re:Victimless (1)

vally_manea (911530) | about 6 years ago | (#23114892)

Well, I think it depends... mostly when those sued are struggling to survive. I don't really think that the issue is so black and white as you put it.

Re:Victimless (5, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | about 6 years ago | (#23114918)

It's like victimizing royalty by taking away land they aren't using so that commoners can hunt for food. Sure then they might not have quite so much bounty going to waste but then who cares? I'm not going to spend my time, energy, and money defending them.

Being civilized means respecting the rights of others to life and liberty - it doesn't mean giving others the right to be rich. I have no problem with people being rich but I feel no need to defend their wealth. I don't believe that being rich makes them more productive so from my point of view it's better if they have to continue struggling for their wealth by doing useful things like producing more music, movies, and other cultural resources. Sitting on their ass enjoying their wealth isn't really a boon for humanity although most of us wouldn't mind being able to do so.

Re:Victimless (3, Insightful)

Marcus Green (34723) | about 6 years ago | (#23115484)

Why the analogy with Royalty. Why do you think that this only affects rich people. Do you think that only rich people create content? There are millions of people who only make a modest income from creative content that are affected by copyright laws and their enforcement. The emphasis on rich people smacks of resentment.

Re:Victimless (5, Insightful)

Plutonite (999141) | about 6 years ago | (#23114994)

Or maybe he's implying, correctly, that sharing digital information for free does not deprive anyone of anything, let alone make them penniless.

Re:Victimless (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | about 6 years ago | (#23115004)

And who is deprived of what exactly when identical copies of digital media can be made? If I have a thing, and you make an identical copy of the thing that I have, that doesn't make me a victim.

Re:Victimless (3, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 6 years ago | (#23115024)

Well the point is more "right now this is illegal but this is sustainable for everyone so why not change the law ?"

Re:Victimless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23115040)

You mean starving MPAA executives?

Re:Victimless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23115132)

Given that files are being *copied* rather than *moved*, nobody is being deprived of anything: the original producers still have the series, just like before.

Yeah, maybe they'll make one sale less (or maybe not). But is there a dog-given right to be able to profit from things forever? No, and copyright was never about that: it was about furthering culture by providing incentives to create things that would ultimately pass into the public domain.

Downloading stuff made by rich corporations (or, for that matter, individuals) may well be illegal (depending on where you live), but it is not immoral, sorry.

Re:Victimless (1)

Icarium (1109647) | about 6 years ago | (#23115286)

If there was a way for me to legally watch my favourite TV shows within a reasonable time of the episodes first airing I wouldn't have a use for BitTorrent at all. As it is, I'm not willing to wait the 6 months (or never) it takes the local broadcaster(s) to pick up a TV show (And since I'm still paying my TV licence and satelite TV subscription anyway, I'm not seeing the victim here. Unless you count the advertisements that I ignore anyway).

I prefer my books is paper format, my software as originals and my movies on the big screen with friends. Pardon me if I'm not losing any sleep at night.

Re:Victimless (1)

Slashdotgirl (912338) | about 6 years ago | (#23114796)

Yes, Me, because of all your pirating I'm now destitute, living under a park bench and feeding from the local trash cans. You scumbags, you wait until I catch you.

Regards

Slashdotgirl

Re:Victimless (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23115346)

You can stay at my place Slashdotgirl, maybe I'll even feed you. But wait, are you the one "stealing" my wireless from under that bench? You scumbag, I hope they catch you.

Re:Victimless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114800)

Since when do people need to be "struggling to make a living" to be considered a victim?

If every download is a lost sale... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23115242)

Should this not mean that there's going to be a 24% reduction in sales?

Actually, since the reason for the $220,000 fine for sharing 24 songs was "thousands of people could have downloaded it", this should really mean a 24,000% reduction!

Re:Victimless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23115456)

I'm a published author with some of my works on BitTorrent sites. I was actually more amused than anything. In fact, I've even used BitTorrent to download some for reference when I didn't have a physical copy on hand at a conference.

Then again, I enjoy writing. I'm not in it to make a living; I just enjoy sharing information. So, it doesn't bug me in the least when it's copied. My publisher has a different standpoint, though.

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114552)

the more torrents will slip through your fingers.

Holiday TV sucks (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 6 years ago | (#23114566)

Well, the proof is clearly in the pudding. If school holidays didn't mark the end of anything decent on the tele I can assure you that the hoards of people wouldn't be racing off to download something better off the net than the horrid renditions of Dickens Christmas Carol being shown on the box.

How does the MPAA know its movie-stealing? (1, Informative)

freedom_india (780002) | about 6 years ago | (#23114576)

I used BitTorrent more during holidays to...download various linux distros, exchange vacation photos and videos with my friends, 'tested' my router, 'tested' comcast whether it complied with its own policy, downloaded movies i BOUGHT from BitTorrent.com and downloaded Farenheit 9/11 about 3 times just to be sure (after all Michael Moore allowed me to do).

So saying bittorrent usage is higher == movie/music stealing is higher is like saying iam getting poorer because the bush government's tax cuts benefit the rich only. Wait! Isn't that true? Sorry, its linking my home foreclosure with Bear Stearns bailout. Wait! Dammit Fox news, you have made me think like an idiot!

Re:How does the MPAA know its movie-stealing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114718)

So saying bittorrent usage is higher == movie/music stealing is higher is like saying iam getting poorer because the bush government's tax cuts benefit the rich only. Wait! Isn't that true? Sorry, its linking my home foreclosure with Bear Stearns bailout.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying in the last sentence, but yes, unrestrained government spending is making you poorer because once the government no longer chooses to tax the people to fund the programs, it has two sources to get the money which is borrowing or printing money, both of which used excessively cause runaway inflation (please don't quote bogus government generated numbers of today).

Inflation favors those with assets such as some rich people. The middle-class have their savings wiped out and the poor can't even live paycheck to paycheck because their dollars buy less (and they won't be getting a raise).

Re:How does the MPAA know its movie-stealing? (1)

rgo (986711) | about 6 years ago | (#23114754)

You are right, Ars Technica seems to be drawing conclusions out of nowhere. They cite the BigChampagne CEO but he never mentions that the higher traffic could be attributed to piracy. Also, the article doesn't mention if other P2P networks like eDonkey have gotten less users, thing that could explain the surge.

PS: BigChampagne [bigchampagne.com] , the people who made the study, is a company that analyzes which music is popular on P2P networks. They've got like a P2P equivalent of the Billboard charts.

Re:How does the MPAA know its movie-stealing? (1)

severn2j (209810) | about 6 years ago | (#23114844)

Another legitimate use I noticed yesterday was when updating the Metal Gear Online beta for the PS3, it uses Bittorrent to distribute updates.. A great idea considering how popular the series is, but nothing to do with piracy. The music/movie industry seems to be doing a very good job of promoting the idea that BT == Piracy..

Publicity and HiDef (1)

WarwickRyan (780794) | about 6 years ago | (#23114660)

Seems logical, people grabbing some HD content for their HDTVs, combined with a general increase in userbase due to all the adverts the MPAA/RIAA keep running about TPB and bittorrent in general.

Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited (5, Insightful)

frkbros44 (1269342) | about 6 years ago | (#23114708)

The current authoritarian tactics are an obvious failure, and are causing substantial collateral damage to innocent victims of miss-targeted enforcement efforts. The solution isn't more of the same, but rather to accommodate human nature and evolving technology.

The only reason why P2P file sharing is a problem is because copyrights have been extended into perpetual special privileges. Copyrights were only needed in the first place due to the limitations of physical media and the brick and mortar distribution system. Both of those are now obsolete - as are the artificial market distortions justified by their limitations.

Just as the Internet offers a far more efficient distribution system, it also offers the ability to shorten the time require for a creator to recover fair value for his work before releasing (some) rights to the public domain. A modified dutch auction over the Internet provides the means for artists to be fully compensated at the moment they finish their creation. Once the artist has received fair value for a recorded performance, there isn't any need to attempt to control how consumers choose to use that recording. The P2P file sharing that today is called piracy, and used to justify ever more abusive intrusions into the rights of all people in order to enforce unnecessary copyright restrictions, becomes highly valuable viral promotion and distribution that benefits the artist.

Remember that the artist has already been cut of meaningful earnings from the reproduction and sale of recordings by the typical "all rights" contract terms imposed by the legacy record labels. Only a tiny percentage of artists earn a living from royalties on their recordings. For most artists, the primary benefit of selling records is just the publicity - they still make most of their money from live performances. File sharing and "word of mouth" on the Internet are much more effective promotion than the paid advertising of the legacy labels.

Re:Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114948)

The only reason why P2P file sharing is a problem is because copyrights have been extended into perpetual special privileges. Copyrights were only needed in the first place due to the limitations of physical media and the brick and mortar distribution system. Both of those are now obsolete - as are the artificial market distortions justified by their limitations.
You're joking, right? Copyright relevance hasn't changed at all. What difference is there between making a physical _copy_ and an electronic one.

For the record, I don't agree with (software) patents. I agree with copyright / trademarks in theory -- but they definitely need a good overhaul .. but let's not make up stupid arguments.

Re:Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 6 years ago | (#23114998)

What difference is there between making a physical _copy_ and an electronic one.
A physical copy always has an incremental cost - that of the physical medium.
An electronic copy has an incremental cost so small that it is typically in the noise.

Re:Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about 6 years ago | (#23115162)

Which is irrelevant if most of the costs you pay for either is essentially a license fee. I remember reading that the cost of pressing a CD in volume was only a few cents, back when CDs were launched. So the reproduction cost has never been a significant percentage of the purchase cost of either music or software.

Re:Prohibitions encourage what is prohibited (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23115196)

Thanks for being overly literal. The question still remains, why is copyright more valid on something with a higher 'incremental cost'?

fakegeek (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114734)

I guess you can expect the numbers to increase considering Demonoid is back.

Getting the old folks on BitTorrent (3, Interesting)

PRlME (871868) | about 6 years ago | (#23114740)

My 65 year-old parents recently asked me how they could also watch all the shows & movies that I've been downloading all these years. So being the good son that I am, I set them up with uTorrent, the appropriate bookmarks, VLC, and a tutorial on how to handle everything. They were quite happy. :)

Re:Getting the old folks on BitTorrent (1)

craagz (965952) | about 6 years ago | (#23114804)

i did not educate my dad properly about the various versions of rips that are floating around trackers. he ended up downloading a really bad print. And then I had to find a better print.. That shud count towards more traffic. Sometimes, my DVD writer doesn't write files well. I end up downloading them again. Sometimes, my friends nick my DVDs and I have to download all the movies again. All counting to more traffic

Not all trafic is illegal (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114802)

Sure - P2P has increased, but more and more software vendors are distributing their software using Bittorrent.

So saying an increase in P2P traffic is equivalent to a increase of illegal streams in not at all correct. A lot of Linux vendors also use P2P to distribute their distro's. A lot of them are about 4Gb in size, so that would be a nice increase of traffic. Also you will notice an increase of traffic within a few day's when the latest Ubuntu hit the web...

And it's not only the Open Source vendors that are using this distribution method. More and more Closed Source software makers ar starting to use this distribution channel, simply because it lowers the cost...

So - saying an increase of P2P traffic is the same as an increase of illegal content is absolutely not true!

Not all torrents are piracy! (4, Insightful)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | about 6 years ago | (#23114820)

BitTorrent is crucial for the economical distribution of large-filesize media. Many Open Source and Free Software publishers use BitTorrent to distribute their installers. Jamendo [jamendo.com] , a distributor of Creative Commons-licensed music, uses both BitTorrent and eMule.

BitTorrent is also critical to unsigned musicians such as myself who offer downloads of their music [geometricvisions.com] from their websites. P2P allows bandwidth to be contributed by one's fans, whereas direct HTTP downloads can bankrupt a struggling artist if one of their tracks becomes a sudden hit.

And yes I know there are many music hosting sites such as MySpace. But it's better for musicians to offer downloads from their own sites rather than to use a host.

Re:Not all torrents are piracy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114900)

The popular World of Warcraft franchise uses bittorrent protocol to upload it's patches.

Re:Not all torrents are piracy! (1)

MikeFM (12491) | about 6 years ago | (#23114952)

You should do something with your homepage. If I came to your website looking for new music I'd probably leave before giving it a fair chance. No reason to sell yourself short. Your music is interesting. I wouldn't mind hearing more. Have you tried anything besides the piano?

I used to sing too, and will again in the future (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | about 6 years ago | (#23115002)

I'm going to need some voice lessons before I do though. If I sing now I croak like a frog. But I was quite a good singer back in the day.

I'm thinking of also taking up the Marimba. I think it would be fairly easy as the bars are arranged just like piano keys.

What is it about my homepage that turns you off? I really appreciate your feedback.

Re:I used to sing too, and will again in the futur (1)

repapetilto (1219852) | about 6 years ago | (#23115180)

Ok man, Im gunna be completely honest with you... I love this but I can send you shit I made up that sounds the same as alot of shit and singing isnt necessary but if your trying to make moeny or something I dunno but music is an awesome hobby and i can send you my own shit if you know a good way to do it (its guitar based) and maybe you can gain something from me like i did from you because thats what this internet thing is all about

ps ignore my bad grammer

You could email it to me (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | about 6 years ago | (#23115306)

I'd be happy to listen to your music.

Email it to michael@geometricvisions.com [mailto]

I hope to earn money from live performances someday, but I'm determined that my recordings will always be free.

For now, my aim is to build a base of fans who might buy tickets to my shows someday, and to study piano and music theory so that a few years from now, when I can pass the entrance audition, I can enroll in music school to study musical composition.

I want to compose symphonies someday!

Re:Not all torrents are piracy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23115042)

Yeah, but how many people actually listen to CC-licensed music? I'm guessing it's in the low thousands, worldwide.

Re:Not all torrents are piracy! (1)

malinha (1273344) | about 6 years ago | (#23115170)

The music that passes on my company phone central while people wait is all CC-licensed no mumbo-jambo mp3's. :)

Re:Not all torrents are piracy! (1)

repapetilto (1219852) | about 6 years ago | (#23115146)

so im about to download your stuff... Im form chicago Ive been in a band with marimbas before so we'll see but that website was really confusing as the other replier said. This post is so I'll get back to you

Private bittorrent networks (4, Insightful)

GNUPublicLicense (1242094) | about 6 years ago | (#23114876)

As a security and privacy feature, people shall now start to deploy full encrypted trackers on which only people they know can connect to (password or PSK). And that additionally to "public" trackers. Another thing, some transports should be able to hide randomly torrent traffic in well known protocols in order to avoid CPU efficient detection. Torrent traffic means data and control stuff from the tracker and other peers. The idea is to make tracking torrent users unreasonable and inefficient regarding net performance. Namely, torrent user tracking will cost a lot and would kill net efficiency.

Yarr, scurvy MPAA will be dancing the hempen jig. (4, Interesting)

falsemover (190073) | about 6 years ago | (#23114930)

In Australia a CD / DVD be around $40 (about US$37). Since this represents about $37 o' pure greed, it's no wonder t' people be votin' with their mouse. I say, when t' sea be rough, jump on t' starboard ship.

Arrr, ahoy landlubbers, we be PIRATES and YOU MPAA will be dancing the hempen jig.

Re:Yarr, scurvy MPAA will be dancing the hempen ji (1)

malinha (1273344) | about 6 years ago | (#23115144)

In Portugal a regular music cd costs around 15euro ( +/- US$27 ) but you can find the latests games for 55/60euro ( about US$95 ), a movie is charged at 25euro ( about US$40 ) ... i pay for my 24/1 adsl 49euro ( about US$ 77 ) and i get 120gb + unlimited on national ISP's, i have 1.5 Tb of disk space, the choice is obvious...

Ironic in a way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23114932)

As I was reading the article, they mentioned that you could download "whole seasons" of TV shows bundled together. While at the moment I'm downloading the whole series of Deep Space Nine. (Hey, I plan on buying the DVDs some day, I'm just broke at the moment.)

Re:Ironic in a way (2, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | about 6 years ago | (#23115118)

While packaging whole seasons together can be convenient, it really sucks that it's difficult to find an individual episode of a series if it isn't relatively new. I was searching long and hard for a torrent of the Season 6 episode of The Simpsons "Bart vs. Australia", but I ended up having to download all of season six just to watch one episode. That's a waste of bandwidth (though luckily my ISP seems not to care about my 100GB/month habit).

Re:Ironic in a way (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23115164)

hmm, you can order downloading of individual files within a torrent, you didnt have to download whole season

So if traffic is up 24% (1)

Afty0r (263037) | about 6 years ago | (#23115120)

And all p2p of copyrighted media is stealing, that must mean that DVD sales and box offices takings are down 24% in just four months.

Crikey, the industry must be really hurting!

When talking about BitTorrent... (3, Interesting)

the_arrow (171557) | about 6 years ago | (#23115154)

Things are happening in the case against The Pirate Bay. One of the police officers involved in the investigation now works for Warner Brothers in Sweden. See here [thelocal.se] for more info.

Most torrents ARE 'piracy' (3, Informative)

HetMes (1074585) | about 6 years ago | (#23115188)

Don't try and make a point about torrents not being 'piracy' by mentioning a few users who downloaded a Linux distro last winter. Anyone knows it's a flawed argument; they're statistically irrelevant anecdotes. Remember those words, as they apply in almost any debate where a general statement is made, and some not too bright person tries to refute it.

Re:Most torrents ARE 'piracy' (4, Insightful)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about 6 years ago | (#23115308)

From the list of torrents downloaded please subtract

Linux Distributions
Other 'free' Software
Non-Copyright Music
Non-Copyright Movies
Creative Commons Content

You still have a very large number of downloads ...but then how many of these people would have bought the content they downloaded?

The industry always complains that they have lost $x million in sales but they do not allow for the fact that the vast majority of the downloaders would never buy what they downloaded?

Mandriva Spring Edition must be popular (4, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 6 years ago | (#23115214)

Well, obviously lots of people must be downloading the latest Mandriva Linux...

It's increased? *gasp* I'm really amazed (2, Insightful)

Eternal Annoyance (815010) | about 6 years ago | (#23115260)

Negative publishing is publishing. Many more people are now aware of the existence of bittorrent and, even worse, are aware how the entertainment industry deals with piracy. The consequences are simple: more and more people distrust the entertainment industry and start using p2p networks (among which bittorrent).

How does the entertainment industry respond? Not by removing or reducing the reason of illegal downloads. Not by gaining trust with the people. No, imagine that sales might actually go up because the price is actually affordable and/or you could easily buy the song or movie you want without any additional crap.

Instead of putting energy in sales (adapting to the market), they put energy in piracy (lobby to get various ineffective, annoying laws applied; suing their clients; Digital Restrictions Management). Result: because of the various annoyances and of the bad reputation of the entertainment industry, piracy increases.

If they'd just adapt to the market, their problem would disappear like snow for the sun (or, at least, reduce to acceptable proportions).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...