Beta
×

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!

French ISP Throttles Direct Download Website

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the naw-just-selectively-boosting-the-rest dept.

Networking 147

siliconbits contributes this snippet: "In what might be the first of many, French Internet Service Provider Orange has been caught throttling traffic to one of the world's biggest direct download websites, Megaupload. The site, which also operates Megavideo, states that Orange, which is owned by France Telecom, is preventing its users from accessing its downloading and video streaming service freely and says that it can prove it."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I Suppose Caught is the Keyword (5, Informative)

ConaxConax (1886430) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889268)

Others have probably been doing it already.

I'm fine with this (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889484)

My son downloads so much stuff that I would hope more ISPs do this. Hopefully this will deter him from slowing things down at home for all the reset of us!

Re:I'm fine with this (5, Insightful)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889546)

So it's not your job to supervise your child then.

Re:I'm fine with this (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889664)

I didn't say he was doing anything illegal - just slowing down our network. It's the modern equivalent of a teenager hogging the one landline that families use to have.

Re:I'm fine with this (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889700)

Stop being inept.

Set some rules, tell the kid to stop and then set some QoS rules on your network.

Re:I'm fine with this (2, Insightful)

NetNed (955141) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889748)

So if your kid picked his nose would you want national legislation to stop him from picking his nose too?

Here's a thought. Tell him no maybe? I would hate for you to ruin the "friendship" you have with your son, but it's you SON not your friend.

Re:I'm fine with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890866)

No, she just wants him to pick it slower so he doesn't tear up his nostrils so bad that they bleed.

Re:I'm fine with this (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889782)

Reread parents post; his point remains.

Re:I'm fine with this (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889804)

Darn right! Just like you, I want more police at cinemas and amusement parks so if my son cuts the line he learn his lesson, same with traffic.

And someone needs to be there checking for the ice cream to, the little b**** sometimes eats it when I'm not home! Someone needs to stop him.

I also pay for the water at the house, and my son takes 1 hour showers, can the aqueduct do something to prevent this? Same when he plugs stuff to the power outlet, I need the power company to do stuff about it, when he was a baby, he got shocked when putting the fingers inside the power outlet! I had to pay a lot in electricity that month, not counting the darn medical bill!

Re:I'm fine with this (2)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889846)

Man, I'm with you! I'm also a responsible concerned parent!

Re:I'm fine with this (0)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891326)

Unfortunately, we're going extinct...

Re:I'm fine with this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890426)

What are you doing here? This is slashdot.

1) Slashdotters don't have kids
2) If slashdotters had kids, the kids wouldn't be hogging the line, slashdotters would be ensuring via technical and other means that any line hogging was done by them :).

Re:I'm fine with this (2)

dfm3 (830843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889690)

He said son, not child. He could be a 34-year old basement dweller for all we know.

Re:I'm fine with this (4, Insightful)

gordguide (307383) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889838)

I don't see your point. If he's sharing the home connection, and it's a problem due to his use, then the father needs a backbone. I don't care how old the son is.

Re:I'm fine with this (5, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890446)

Yeah the father needs a gigabit backbone.

Re:I'm fine with this (2)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890462)

If he's sharing the home connection, and it's a problem due to his use, then the father needs a backbone. I don't care how old the son is.

Perhaps the son pays for the Internet connection?

Re:I'm fine with this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889564)

Perhaps you could try parenting.

Re:I'm fine with this (2)

PrimaryConsult (1546585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890004)

Please, don't impose your will on the rest of the users on your ISP just because you are not competent enough to set up your own QoS. It could be technical based (ie: Fancy router, linux router, software on his pc), or it could be as simple as unplugging his ethernet cable/blocking his mac whenever the internet slows down for you. Do that a few times and he'll start running his downloads when no one else is on.

Re:I'm fine with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890078)

Well, maybe you are right and I could prevent my son from clogging things up this way. Could you be more specific as to what needs to be done? What is QoS?

Re:I'm fine with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890542)

Re:I'm fine with this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34891346)

Thanks for the advice and links. We have 6 Windows ME machines. Which one of these do you think would work best for us? Does it put password protection on everything? That might keep my son from doing his schoolwork.

Re:I'm fine with this (1)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890398)

LOL WHAT A RETARD!

Re:I'm fine with this (0)

Gripp (1969738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891290)

there are LOADS of softwares out there that YOU can use to restrict his internet usage; whilst allowing the rest of us to continue using the internet in the mannors which it should be.

the problem with your "desire" for big brother to solve your parenting problems is that it would ultimately come at a HUGE expense to the rest of us. sure, an ISP could block certain sites, but then others would just pop up. further, a lot of these sites have LEGAL things which others ought to be able to download. Even if an ISP really did a good job staying on top of warez then it would just go back underground, as it was in the 90's (file transfers in IRC chats, etc)
so the only way to restrict it from there is to only allow upload streams from "registered content providers" ... which, not only would still be circumvented in some way, but would utterly destroy the internet as we know it, as only those who have $$ to begin with would be able start/host web sites. And this would, of course, restrict the average-joe/youngster from getting into programming and the likes to begin with (since they wouldn't just be able to publish their content)

so, yeah, lets destroy the internet and the ability for society at-large to become technologically inclined so that you dont have to google "net-nanny" ...

Re:I Suppose Caught is the Keyword (1)

Deekin_Scalesinger (755062) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889496)

It's possible - sure. You can throttle it from a server admin end, an hosting provider end, an upstream provider end, a Tier 1 end...a damn shame. Almost makes me want to see the Internet partially regulated, so stuff like this doesn't happen.

Of course, that opens a million questions. Who regulates it? The G8? One country, one vote? Companies? A "non partisian" governing body a la IETF or the IEEE? What if you or I or Mohammad or Jorge or Masahari doesn't like the way it is regulated in their country? Look at all the news stories that China and North Korea generate about their methods of throttling aka information dispersal.

OTOH, what about companies that have invested zillions into their piping infrastructure, only to have smaller competitors take advantage of it...

I have no idea what the answer is - man things were easier back in the day of BBSs and Lynx.

(disclaimer, I'm not arguing with the parent poster - it just made me think a little bit about the whole thing, and the many different angles involved)

Re:I Suppose Caught is the Keyword (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890580)

sed -i "s/have probably been/are/"

Be careful francies... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889274)

You don't want an invading army of filesharers to roll in and take over your country.

Legality (4, Interesting)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889284)

Is that even illegal? I think that's the whole reason for the Net Neutrality debate here in the states, and I don't actually know if it's illegal here yet... although I may be ignorant of some more basic law there that covers this kind of thing. But have our more politically enlightened friends in France made it illegal yet?

Re:Legality (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889360)

It's France. Petit Napoleon probably already passed a law that butchers the internet freedom without anyone noticing.

Re:Legality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889392)

We had noticed it... and intented to warn the rest of the population, but music and movies lobbies are stronger than citizen lobbies :(

Re:Legality (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889490)

Then raise a toast to the media lobbies. With Molotov cocktails.

Re:Legality (2)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889768)

Not that far off, considering how often there's a riot in modern France.

Re:Legality (4, Informative)

johnjaydk (584895) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889892)

Thank god, that leaders like him are in short supply. A man who requests SMALL bodyguards.

Re:Legality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34891000)

Napoleon wasn't actually particularly short. See Wikipedia's list of common misconceptions.

Re:Legality (4, Interesting)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889426)

Is that even illegal?

It is illegal. There are laws that protect users and allow them to access the sites they want.
If Orange is not happy with a given site, they have to follow a legal procedure to close the site, not prevent the users from accessing it.

Re:Legality (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889534)

It's only illegal if you get caught.

Re:Legality (2)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889448)

According to the US-FCC's new neutrality rules, ISPs are allowed to throttle websites as part of their "network management". The ISPs are required to be non-discriminatory when they throttle, but good luck enforcing that part of the regulation.

As for France, I've no clue if throttling is allowed, but given their three-strike laws they don't seem a very internet-friendly country. I bet the ISP won't be punished.

Re:Legality (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890246)

According to the US-FCC's new neutrality rules, ISPs are allowed to throttle websites as part of their "network management". The ISPs are required to be non-discriminatory when they throttle, but good luck enforcing that part of the regulation.

That means they cannot throttle apple.com more than they do microsoft.com, and vice-versa.

FFS, how difficult is this to understand???

As for France, I've no clue if throttling is allowed....

So why are you opening your yapper in the first place?? STFU if you have nothing informative to say.

Re:Legality (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34891038)

That means they cannot throttle apple.com more than they do microsoft.com, and vice-versa. FFS, how difficult is this to understand???

yes, now explain us, how will the criteria for 'nondiscrimination' and 'network management' will be defined. huh ? they are not defined ? so, they are solely left to the whim of the private party ?

Re:Legality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889756)

Illegal. Should have built it into the system. Why can't we ditch this crappy notion of regulating it when all you need is a system that is built for a trustless world.

Re:Legality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889970)

It is a breach of contract with Orange's users.

Common Carrier (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890442)

Yes. It's called common carrier status, and it's what gives ISP's the ability to not be responsible for what their users do. As soon as they start filtering traffic, they are no longer common carrier, and should be legally responsible for ANY wrongdoing of their users. They're busy trying to have their cake and eat it too though.

Re:Common Carrier (2)

Thundersnatch (671481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890926)

...except ISPs are not Common Carriers [arstechnica.com] in the USA. Please stop talking out of your ass.

Orange (0)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889286)

Sounds like Orange is French for Comcast.

Please Verizon get Fios in my area soon.

Re:Orange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889464)

Just that Orange is a company from the UK if memory serves, they just bought into France

Re:Orange (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889522)

Orange was a mobile phone company in the UK. Then they were bought by France Telecom. Then they used the Orange brand as an ASDL reseller in the UK. I think they're now using the Orange brand in France too (at least, TFA implies it), but possibly only for ADSL and not for mobile phones.

Re:Orange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889566)

Orange is also the brand France Telecom uses for mobile phones in France.

Re:Orange (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889554)

Orange is the French for orange.

Re:Orange (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889806)

Anyone begging for verizon hasnt dealt with their customer service.

I often wonder if they genuinely loathe their non-mobile users.

Yeah but (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889334)

all these download sites throttle the connection themselves (unless you are a premium user)

Not to mention really hard to work captchas, and waiting 30 second or more to download.

So I guess if it's really being throttled no one notices it

Re:Yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889348)

at the very least, megaupload does not have "hard to work" captchas.

i wonder why they have captchas, its not like they can prevent anything.

(i use freerapid download manager, and it can solve megauploads captchas without problem)

Re:Yeah but (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889370)

For the same reason they have the 30 seconds wait: To annoy user into signing up for premium.

Re:Yeah but (1)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890414)

Then why not just use torrents? for Pete's sake whats wrong with people going back to HTTP and being annoyed with poor bandwidth/having to wait, when it is all already on torrents, for free, at maximum speed!

Re:Capchas are harde (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890752)

I was just discussing this the other day with a friend. Captchas are usually hard to read for most people who are not used to them. Some of them are really messy (I remember Rapidshare's cats).

And the alternative (some people have bad eyesights) is, many times, a long set of horrible sounds and spoken words that I usually fail to get right.

"garble, garble, random noise, FOUR, garble, garble, SEE (or whas it SEA?), garble, garble, RED."

Added to that, not everyone might understand those pronunciations.

Finally, as Parent said, do they really prevent anything?

Re:Yeah but (4, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889350)

*Cough* [skipscreen.com]

Re:Yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889476)

That's cute, but...

*cough* [jdownloader.org]

Re:Yeah but (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889500)

I'll pass on the "skipscreen"..... for the same reason I don't use ad-blocking. Although I do use NoScript (to block viruses/spies).

Re:Yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889746)

Because you're an idiot?

Re:Yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889894)

Yeah. We're idiots who understand that things cost money to produce. Gay arrogant retarded assholes with entitlement complexes need to figure that out.

Funny CAPTCHA: bowels

Re:Yeah but (2)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890028)

If two anonymous cowards (0) are
talking in a woods (or slashdot),
does anybody hear them? ;-)

Re:Yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890106)

Ads are annoying and disruptive, at least to me. Also I'll choose what to load and not load on MY browser.

RequestPolicy is a fantastic adblocker, with the added bonus of making sure google analytics never sees me. It still amazes me sometimes when I load up a site, click on the RequestPolicy flag, and see literally 20 ad/tracking/spam/malware sites wanting to load.

Re:Yeah but (1)

PrimaryConsult (1546585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889958)

Ads do not waste your time, and help pay for the site you are visiting, so not using adblocking makes perfect sense. I don't use it either (but noscript/flashblock is great for avoiding 'talkie' ads, which disrupt my workflow).

But skip screen simply avoids the annoyances put in place by the download sites to get you to subscribe to their service. But if you have no intention of ever subscribing, not using skipscreen simply wastes your time. It's not like you are discovering some new product or service, or helping fund the site by waiting 45 seconds.

Re:Yeah but (1)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889998)

Ads do not waste your time...

Yes, they do, actually; ads are often one of the slowest things to load, and unless they're set up right (which they're often not), the browser will wait to finish loading them before properly rendering the rest of the page.

Re:Yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889516)

Cough harder or shut up.

Re:Yeah but (1)

Carnivorous Vulgaris (1964964) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889568)

What happened to P2P?
The job bittorrent was made for, seems to have been replaced by a bunch of rubbishy web-based services.

Robust, distributed protocols -> Web based junk -> Web based junk: Sign in using facebook ID -> iPhone app -> ???

Re:Yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889698)

Easy to answer, here in France, P2P sharing is more or less monitered and you can be fined if your are taken illegaly downloading.
HTML traffic isn't.

Re:Yeah but (1)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890222)

Just use a VPN; even without a VPN the chances of HADOPI ever catching you are quite low.
and even if they catch you it is unlikely to lead to more than idle threats. Much like in the UK.

Re:Yeah but (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889774)

What happened to P2P? The job bittorrent was made for, seems to have been replaced by a bunch of rubbishy web-based services.

Because P2P only works in a subset of the use-cases that megaupload satisfies. Perhaps I need to get a larger file to a client and don't want to set up an FTP site, etc. Megaupload already provides the exact service that I need.

Re:Yeah but (1)

leromarinvit (1462031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890218)

You send your clients links that open obnoxious porn and gambling popups, even circumventing some popup blockers (Firefox without adblock at least)?

Re:Yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889788)

Robust, distributed protocols -> Web based junk -> Web based junk: Sign in using facebook ID -> iPhone app -> ??? -> Profit!

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889428)

there's a difference between the site throttle and the ISP throttle. I'm not premium and i can download at more than 400kBps. Orange subscribers says they have less than 50kBps

Re:Yeah but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890052)

Yep. I'd lose my mind without skipscreen handling those waits for me.

ISP's (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889382)

Proudly refusing to give you the bandwidth you paid for since 1998.

Back To The Future (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889744)

Proudly refusing to give you the bandwidth you paid for since 1998.

What you paid for then - and what you pay for now - is 24/7 access and flat rate monthly billing at a mass market price. As oppossed to billing-by-the hour for dial-up sevices like Compuserve --- at a stiff $8 to $12 an hour, unadjusted for inflation.

Re:Back To The Future (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889882)

I'd love for pay-per-hour to come back. It is how almost all those ISPs even got started and it made them the most money, probably.
You can bet your ass people would still use it even if all of them did switch over to per-hour payments. (especially if it wasn't too insane a price)
Single significant currency unit per hour? (1 dollar/h, 1 pound/h, 1 euro/h, etc. country and currency boundaries won't matter)
You bet people would pay it. Less per hour, even more so.

To be honest, i would rather pay for bandwidth USED than buying a bandwidth package, or worse, "unlimited" (never going near any ISP who says unlimited)
I'd gladly pay for per-gigabyte if it was a decent price.

If anything, idiots need to stop downloading so much, so often. And by idiots, i don't mean everyone. By idiots, i mean people who sit and download things that could easily be watched on TV AS IT AIRS FOR FREE.
God only knows how many people i see doing this. Then they complain about their connections being throttled and sometimes even killed?
People like that should be forced on per-hour connections since it is idiots like that who clog up most of the internet with useless downloads.
Mind you, i'm of the kind who thinks people should be banned from personal computers (and personal internet!) until they pass a simple test, go figure.
Too many idiots is a bad thing. I'm going back to the past, it was better. Web communities, internet communities, smart communities, not the-now-ruined facebook level of communities. /rant

Re:Back To The Future (1)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890332)

I dont have a TV or a TV license because French TV sucks you insensitive clot!

My connection never got killed or throttled, and I am on the extreme end of paranoia so I would have noticed.

How about you stop clogging up the internet with your useless comments? besides, bandwidth, like money, is there to be used...

I do agree however we should stop letting idiots on the internets... but that's for another discussion.

Megaupload vs Rapidshare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889404)

It's going to be extra interesting if Rapidshare is not throttled

It's going to be hilarious if Rapidshare paid money to Orange ("voluntarily" or not)

It's going to be a toin coss when the EU Commissioners for Competition and "Digital Agenda" are going to get involved.

the cheap Abercrombie & Fitch store (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889470)

Abercrombie & Fitch [abercrombiefitchaf.com]

A&F [abercrombiefitchaf.com]

Hollister [abercrombiefitchaf.com]

Abercrombie Fitch [abercrombiefitchaf.com]

cheap abercrombie and fitch clothing [abercrombiefitchaf.com]

2011 Abercrombie & Fitch new style online sales!Abercrombie Fitch,cheap Abercrombie and Fitch,Buy discount Abercrombie&Fitch clothing from (AbercrombieFitchAF.com) Online Store. 63% OFF,Please Come order now! More surprises waiting for you!

Bell Canada does it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889482)

Bell Canada does (did?) the same thing. I was downloading something from hotfile late at night and the download was locked at 30KB/s. I just happened to be watching it when 2am rolled by and it instantly shot up to 200KB/s. Bell does the same thing with bittorrent - it locks them at 30KB/s from 5pm to 2am.

Thing was my isp at the time wasn't even Bell, it was Teksavvy. Teksavvy leases out part of the phone line architecture from Bell so they're users get hit by the throttling too.

Re:Bell Canada does it (1)

kenshin33 (1694322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889900)

Bell throttles only P2P (torrent anything else I don;t know about) or anything mistaken for P2P. You can get around it using a VPN/Proxy. Whereas in this case Orange is throttling a website (HTTP) access.

Just plain incompetence (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889686)

I am working for France Telecom/Orange in a service directly involved with this problem, and I can assure you that this throttling is not true.
Actually, we had the same problem with Youtube, and at the same time other ISP had the same issue though they resolved it faster than us ... Which lead to just apologizes: yes FT/Orange is not the cutting-edge ISP and Telco it used to be; but No we are not doing it on purpose.

Re:Just plain incompetence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890348)

So, Orange is worse than the other ISP and is still the most expensive?
What else is new?

Re:Just plain incompetence (4, Insightful)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890618)

Has it ever been cutting-edge? Come on! The market in France is only pushed thanks to the innovations of "Free". If they weren't around, every French would still use a stupid Sagem modem, no TV over IP, no IP phone and such.
What made everyone laugh head-off was the "Ma ligne TV" thing, were you had to choose between ADSL or TV over IP. What a joke.
Exactly what was the cutting-edge thing you were talking about?

Re:Just plain incompetence (1)

lexidation (1825996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890906)

My connection must be coming through your territory, then :-) Youtube started getting throttled in this country (CZ) in mid-November. My ISP is a three-man show and they swear they know nothing about it. I believe them. Therefore it must be upstream somewhere. I used to get 400, now youtube maxes at around 50.

What's the motivation? (1, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34889708)

Are people still paying for warez sites? It seems to me the music and video content producers are waving the white flag by offering their goods for reasonable prices.

Music: I am not old, but when I was a kid, an audiocasette was $12-$14 at the store, and minimum wage was $3.35. You could work half a day (4 hours) to buy one album. Now I am getting mp3 albums from amazon for $5-$7 each, and minimum wage is $7.25 (1 hour). (My own viewpoint is probably skewed further because I actually was earning minimum wage then, and naturally make more now). And usually a few tracks of any album can be found for free on youtube.

Video: Most movies can be streamed legally for $1-$3, and that's if they're not already available through netflix $8/mo unlimited streaming plan. Even paid piracy sites used to cost more than that. Is it even worth two hours of my time to watch if it's not worth $1 to me? I don't feel the slightest incentive to shell out for a Blu-Ray player and their $20 discs.

Granted, piracy is probably to thank for putting price pressure on the content cartels. And net neutrality is just as important for 3rd party legal streaming as illegal downloading, since from the ISPs perspective they're exactly the same. But anyways, this story made me think how things have got quite a bit better in the last few years.

Re:What's the motivation? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890290)

Photoshop still costs hundreds and Gipm is... not a replacement. PS is the only pirated software I have.

Re:What's the motivation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890560)

Photoshop costs hundreds because that is what the market will bear.

Question is - are you in that market?

You say that 'Gipm' is not a replacement - I agree, The GIMP's got a long way (and a name change, imho) to go, but as people do use The GIMP, or Paint.NET, or, heck, Photoshop Elements, even for fairly complicated tasks, it and others are not exactly required to be a replacement to Photoshop except for those who actually need Photoshop's more advanced features.

Therein, thus, lies the rub... you apparently feel that you need those advanced features. Usually that stems from needing to use them within a professional setting. But every professional I know using Photoshop has the cost of investment in Photoshop recovered in just a few jobs. Airbrush some lady's face for a magazine cover? Sure, that'll be $150. Need that 2011 model car dramatized for a magazine spread? $400. A few more jobs and they'll be well on their way to a 3-monitor setup, the largest Cintiq they can find, and an iPad to tote around to show their clients some rough sketches.

So either..
A. you're not a professional, in which case you really don't *need* Photoshop. You may prefer it, just as I prefer a Lamborghini, but my Ford will take me from A to B just fine.
B. you'd like to be a professional, and want to learn Photoshop to roll into that world. Consider purchasing your own license as an investment - similar to how people invest into their general education. Heck, if you are a student, there's student discounts that drop the price of Photoshop right down.
C. you are a professional, work with Photoshop at a company, and are unaware of the portable/home computer use clause of the license (2.4 in recent license texts).
D. you are a professional and work with Photoshop commercially, and are just a cheapskate. 'nuff said.
E. Other, specifically...

You can fill in E if you think you fall well outside of options A-D.

Re: Interesting role reversal. (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890820)

I'm genuinely surprised, this is exactly opposite of what I'd expect to happen.

I'd think that the AC would say he has pirated software and would tell him why he was wrong. Not the other way around.

Re: Interesting role reversal. (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890904)

For the record, I'm cheap.

Re:What's the motivation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34891252)

Yes, Gipm is not a replacement but Gimp is!

Re:What's the motivation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34891314)

Fucking moron.

Re:What's the motivation? (1)

PARENA (413947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890400)

Now I am getting mp3 albums from amazon for $5-$7 each

Yes, but not everyone is in the US or another amazon-mp3-enabled country. Spotify sells albums for about 9-10 euros. That's around 13 USD. I'm not saying it's a bad price, but just to compare.

Video: Most movies can be streamed legally for $1-$3, and that's if they're not already available through netflix $8/mo unlimited streaming plan.

Please show me where I can do that from here (Finland), I might even boot my never-used XP for that (Linux user talking). No netflix-like service available for me, either, which really sucks as I have a Wii which would be supported. :(

Re:What's the motivation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890444)

I still get freedom with piracy.

Re:What's the motivation? (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890470)

Amazon makes B&M pricing for most things look like a joke, so the current price (which is often closer to $10) for an intangible product isn't amazing. I doubt you can find any movie you'd want streamed for $1 (netflix doesn't have porn!), but even if you could streaming sucks.

Re:What's the motivation? (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890794)

Music: I am not old, but when I was a kid, an audiocasette was $12-$14 at the store, and minimum wage was $3.35.

yes ur old

Re:What's the motivation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890844)

>Are people still paying for warez sites? It seems to me the music and video content producers are waving the white flag by offering their goods for reasonable prices.

What are you talking about? All I get is "this video is not available in your country" (Austria).

Misleading summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34889740)

As the article makes it clear, Orange is not actively throttling traffic. It stems from a long peering dispute between Cogent and France Telecom (Orange's parent company). The issue is affecting Orange throughout Europe (not just France).

Peering issue... (3, Interesting)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890142)

For me it looks more like Orange not wishing to do peering with Cogent and Tata, both used by Megaupload. As bandwidth through the other links costs Orange money, they probably throttle bandwidth with megaupload or something like that.

As said a thousand times ... (4, Interesting)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890158)

It is a peering issue, France Telecom is trying to push OpenTransit on the market by making Level3, Cogent look bad.

Orange users can, as I told them many times before, contact the OpenTransit NOC to complain.

What's the problem? (1)

OddJobBob (1965628) | more than 3 years ago | (#34890766)

If you want to download a shit load of stuff then what is the problem with paying for it? I pay for a limited daytime usage (60GB/month) which is more than enough for the time being. My ISP has a list of sites that will be capped throughput wise of which Megaupload is one of them and I am fine with that. People really need to get real with the concept that bits and bytes actually do cost something.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?