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!

100 P2P Users Upload 75% of Content

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the they-must-be-very-busy dept.

Piracy 269

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers say that about 100 people (called pirates in the article) are responsible for 75 percent of all downloading on BitTorrent (and the same group does 66 percent of all uploading), and says that the way to shut down the p2p network is simply to disincentive that relatively small number of people. The other large group identified in the study were people (such as from copyright enforcement agencies) who uploaded fake content to frustrate other users. No suggestions were made about how to prevent people from uploading fake content — but it was suggested that the first group could have their ad revenue cut or could be heavily fined."

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

Little Confused (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010344)

I don’t really get (and the article didn’t really seem to explain) how these elite uploaders of the pirated content receive this ad-revenue. Are they saying that the people who post the bulk of the infringing torrents on various networks receive ad-revenue from the indexing sites (where the ads would be displayed)? I don’t understand how ad revenue flows from the indexing sites to the users who upload the content.

It almost seems like these guys asked themselves “why do they do it”, looked at a torrent site, saw the ads, and just said “ah, that’s why” and wrote a paper.

Also, the suggestion in this article to provide “disincentives” to the people uploading the bulk of pirated content is kind of obvious and silly. If the media industry had any way of actually doing this, it would have been done a long time ago. I think it’s already recognized by most people that the bulk of pirated content originates from a small number of sources. I can’t imagine that big media hasn’t been trying unsuccessfully to shut this group down for quite a while.

Unless I’m missing something, this whole article comes across as another one of these ridiculous studies where after 3 years of research and a few million dollars they reveal that fire is hot and scissors can be sharp. I file this right next to

Re:Little Confused (4, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010422)

Augh! What the heck happened to the rest of my words!

Re:Little Confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010502)

Augh! What the heck happened to the rest of my words!

I'm not sure... where did you say you were filing them?

Re:Little Confused (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010504)

It's Slashdot's new automatic tl;dr feature. The plan is to keep cranking down the character limit until Slashdot resembles a threaded Twitter. Then it really will be time to leave.

Re:Little Confused (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010674)

Some people said the new interface looks like Facebook, so I'm guessing we're half-way there already.

Re:Little Confused (4, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010712)

Whenever I write comments on any website these days, I CTRL+A, CTRL+C before hitting submit.

Burned too many times.

Re:Little Confused (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010840)

Same here! Especially if my boss walks in

Re:Little Confused (3, Informative)

axx (1000412) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010892)

Or you could use the great Lazarus Firefox extension.
It changed my life. (kinda)

Re:Little Confused (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011142)

It'sAllText is better, in my opinion. I like using a decent editor.

Re:Little Confused (5, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010794)

You were starting to ramble, so we

Re:Little Confused (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010610)

On the torrent site I visit most often, the community is small but dedicated. They upload for the same reason programmers volunteer time to Linux coding, or volunteers work at homeless kitchens. It's their way of feeling good.

Of course the #1 uploader is the site owner - obviously he gains from ad profit, so that's his motive. The rest are just volunteers.

Re:Little Confused (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010680)

On the torrent site I visit most often, the community is small but dedicated. They upload for the same reason programmers volunteer time to Linux coding, or volunteers work at homeless kitchens. It's their way of feeling good.

BS.

Of course the #1 uploader is the site owner - obviously he gains from ad profit, so that's his motive.

Yeah that's the REAL reason - the top 100 are probably site owners making money.

The rest are just volunteers.

For what reason? To waste money on electricity? Prematurely kill their computers by running them 24/7? I upload until I hit a good 2:1 ratio and that's it. Then I erase whatever I downloaded. (Or buy it on DVD if it's good.)

Re:Little Confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010846)

2:1? Why would you do anything more than 1:1? You're wasting money on electricity and prematurely killing your computer!

There is a reason why you seed 2:1 instead of 1.5:1 or .01:1, and it's the same sort of reason these people volunteer their time.

Re:Little Confused (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011190)

For what reason? To waste money on electricity? Prematurely kill their computers by running them 24/7?

Same reason people did it back in the usenet and IRC days and do Folding@Home and SETI. Some people just get a kick out of it.

And I doubt that running a computer 24/7 has a serious impact on it's longevity. Computers tend to go obsolete long before they "wear out".. and if something does break (psu, hard drive, mobo caps), it was probably going to break regardless of whether it was shutdown every day (infact, in some cases that might actually cause it to break faster).

Re:Little Confused (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010704)

I think the author(s) of the article are confused... they very well may be confusing "uploading" with "seeding".

Re:Little Confused (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010758)

This "study" is complete bullshit. The only source of data for their study are two sites. One is Mininova, which doesn't deal in material that infringes copyright and hasn't for a year and a half. The other is The Pirate Bay, which I don't even know what the hell the current status is, because I remember they sold themselves, then they didn't sell themselves, then they did and created two new public indexers, then were going to go legit and . . . whatever. Anyway, the point being, who the fuck still uses TPB and how is it a relevant source of data on Bit Torrent anymore?

So, the source of their data is clearly flawed. They're stressing points about "piracy" when one site isn't even "piracy" related and the other is . . . whatever the fuck it is, anymore.

Second, they claim that 100 people are responsible for almost all of the UPLOADS (that is, 100 people are responsible for almost all of the content being put out there). You can assume that they're counting scene release accounts as one person, when they're probably many more. Also, again, they're saying that 100 people are responsible for that much content . . . ON THOSE TWO SITES. Not "all of bit torrent". That would be fucking absurd of them to claim *that*.

And, finally, yes, they actually do say that the incentive for most of the uploaders is that they get revenue from ads on the indexing sites as well as money from VIP subscriptions to the sites for faster bandwidth. All of which is essentially bullshit, unless there is some secret deal where TPB and other sites are cutting big checks to Axxo and Klaxxon and all these other guys who are out there spreading content around, which I doubt.

It seems that these "researches" simply can't grasp the idea that a lot of these people get a kick out of sharing for sharing's sake and that respect (and maybe credits toward their future download ratio at private sites) is all they're looking to receive.

Re:Little Confused (2)

Jbain (1453725) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011102)

I don't think these researchers understand the concept of "e-penis"

Re:Little Confused (1)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011198)

I don’t really get (and the article didn’t really seem to explain) how these elite uploaders of the pirated content receive this ad-revenue. Are they saying that the people who post the bulk of the infringing torrents on various networks receive ad-revenue from the indexing sites (where the ads would be displayed)? I don’t understand how ad revenue flows from the indexing sites to the users who upload the content.

Because those 100 users are bots. Yes, they upload 75% of the content but it's a bot uploading from a release list. They don't create the content, torrent and make the bandwidth available.

The Real MO behind the data retention (1)

ciabs (1972918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010406)

And now you have part of the real MO behind the doj's mandatory data retention treason. Toss all these dicks out in 2012

Re:The Real MO behind the data retention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010906)

Treason? Seriously? I think you may be in need of a dictionary.

In any event, it's not really a secret that the desire for ISP logs is to have evidence in criminal prosecutions. Considering how rarely you see criminal copyright prosecutions, I doubt that's real high on their list.

Contradiction (4, Informative)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010408)

Headline says uploading, summary and linked article say downloading. Headline is wrong.

Re:Contradiction (0)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010442)

Yes, this was obvious as soon as I read it.

Re:Contradiction (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010780)

100 people are responsible for uploading the content that 75% of the internet downloads.

Re:Contradiction (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010786)

No, the article says UPLOADING. Not downloading. The article is talking about the sources of content, like Axxo, Klaxxon, etc.

Re:Contradiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010938)

Axxo is a source? I thought he was the guy who downloaded scene content, put his name on the files, reencoded to a shitty condition, then sent it to P2P.

Re:Contradiction (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010978)

And, therefore, it is Axxo's account which is the source of that content on whatever given site is in discussion. They're not taking about Warner Brothers being the source of the content, because they made the damn film that was uploaded. They're talking about 100 people (accounts) on the site being responsible for the uploads. Most likely, they mean "if you look at the name of the account on the torrent that was uploaded, most of them are from the same 100 accounts".

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010412)

Researchers say that about 100 people (called pirates in the article) are responsible for 75 percent of all downloading on BitTorrent (and the same group does 66 percent of all uploading),

So if they upload about 66% of the content then why does the headline say that they upload 75%?

Re:Huh? (4, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010492)

Researchers say that about 100 people (called pirates in the article) are responsible for 75 percent of all downloading on BitTorrent (and the same group does 66 percent of all uploading),

So if they upload about 66% of the content then why does the headline say that they upload 75%?

I think at this point we should feel lucky that slashdot didn't take the "66%" and "75%" and resize our browser window.

75% of all downloading? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011200)

WTF? Either there's very little downloading being done or those 100 people are very busy watching all those films and listening to all that music they download...

A solution for the RIAA & MPAA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010452)

Why don't they just pay off the 100 to get them to stop?

Re:A solution for the RIAA & MPAA (3, Funny)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010494)

^Obviously one of the 100.

Re:A solution for the RIAA & MPAA (3, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010500)

Same reason the authorities tend to advise not to pay kidnappers, governments refuse to negotiate with terrorists, etc - as soon as you start doing that and word gets out, you'll opening the door to other people doing the same thing.

Re:A solution for the RIAA & MPAA (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010728)

tax

Ad revenue (0)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010454)

Yup!

Sounds a little low, but... (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010476)

I'd be willing to bet that there is a 'core' of people on tpb and others that represent a bulk of the trusted content. I, like many others, tend to download off of tpb from the 'trusted' uploaders most of the time. Coincidentally, those also tend to the the torrents with the most seeders and leechers. When you factor in the fact that many of the big torrent sites mirror to the same torrents, this really doesn't sound too far fetched. Again, I think the 100 number is a little low, though...

Re:Sounds a little low, but... (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010530)

I personally know about 30 people that have automatic scripts on their MythTV boxes that automatically upload TV shows the second they are done recording and the commercials have been flagged and removed. So there has to be 40X more than who I know unless I am highly connected at the center of internet piracy.... Yarrrr!

Hey feds! Give me $1,000,000 USD tax free and I'll give up all the goods you need on these horrible evil people that are destroying humanity as we know it!

Yes I have a price. Everyone does.

Re:Sounds a little low, but... (1)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010556)

I don't have a price.

Re:Sounds a little low, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010646)

Really? Well then you're a gay fish!

Re:Sounds a little low, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010664)

You are absolutely right, of course. You have AIDS.

Re:Don't have a price (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010734)

Yes you do.

Re:Sounds a little low, but... (1)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010606)

Yeah, but how many people in total are they seeding to? I don't deny that there are lots of uploaders out there, I'm just saying that the bulk of them slide into obscurity when the big names are uploading the same content and seeding to several hundred people. The more trusted uploaders on tpb likely seed far more bits to many more people than your 30 friends would...unless they are one and the same and are you are as highly connected as you say :)

Re:Sounds a little low, but... (3, Insightful)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010564)

I'd be willing to bet that there is a 'core' of people on tpb and others that represent a bulk of the trusted content. I, like many others, tend to download off of tpb from the 'trusted' uploaders most of the time. Coincidentally, those also tend to the the torrents with the most seeders and leechers. When you factor in the fact that many of the big torrent sites mirror to the same torrents, this really doesn't sound too far fetched. Again, I think the 100 number is a little low, though...

I assume most of these "trusted uploaders" (like eztv on tpb for example) aren't individuals but a loose-knit group of people who know each other through the internet. Good luck taking a group like that down, it might be spread over a dozen countries or more.

Technical Feasibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010512)

So... what would be the uh... (you know, I'm just curious) technical specs and bandwidth for the 100 titanic (perhaps god-like) users, (purportedly the nigh-sole users) of ALL of bitTorrent evar?

Re:Technical Feasibility? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010870)

No way it is technically feasible simply on terms of manpower.

I have, especially in the past, been a big torrent user. Their have been times in my life that I have consumed as much media as humanly possible and downloaded twice as much as I could consume (all on a 5MB line), and btw spending a significant amount of time simply finding torrents. Their is no way that anyone, no matter how much bandwidth they have, could torrent more then twice what I did (and that is not even really realistic unless their sole concern was using up as much bandwidth as possible).

Their is no way that 75% of all torrent traffic was just 100 times what I was doing (just looking at the torrent sites and all the torrents that I am not involved in that have tons of seeds and leachers).

I assume that they must of mixed up corporations and ISPs with single users.

Re:Technical Feasibility? (3, Insightful)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010982)

I doubt they are talking about those 100 literally uploading the most number of bytes. They upload quite a bit I'm sure. But I think they mean 100 people are creating the torrents which are making up the vast majority of torrent usage. 100 seems a little low based on my limited experience, but I would easily believe that less than 1000 people are at the core of "creating" the illegal content that shows up at the top of the charts on torrent sites.

Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (3, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010514)

Don't they realize that artists are being disincentivized from creating content? That means only the safest, accountant-friendly products get made (e.g. crappy romantic comedies and bubblegum pop). I'm a big movie buff and it's infuriating that Hollywood is getting so creatively conservative.

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010574)

On the contrary. The existence of P2P incentivizes artists to make content worth paying for.

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010688)

No, your post is consistent with GodfatherofSoul's. Most people will only pay for stuff they can understand—ergo, comparative junk. Remember that Avatar was the highest-grossing film of all time, followed by Titanic.

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (1)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011202)

That's because, obviously, Avatar and Titanic are the two best movies ever made. We all know performance at the box office is indicative of movie quality. I mean, look at how well Tansformers 2 did.

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (1)

thynk (653762) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010690)

You have an excellent point. I offer evidence of this with the movie "The Man From Earth". I don't recall this excellent movie ever being in theaters, and when the producer found it was being shared online, asked for a small donation if you downloaded it and enjoyed it. I kicked in a couple of bucks because I want to encourage this sort of marketing.

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (1)

Romeozulu (248240) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010692)

Yes, a sane rational person would think this, but unfortunately, this is not how the world works. What this really does is make movie companies do only safe content, crap that sells to the mindless masses. It's sad, but it's true.

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011018)

Businesses will always attempt to do the work that gives them the largest profit margins. That's true no matter how much content someone "steals."

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011038)

Why would they produce something else? If the effect of p2p were gone completly, then artistic and creative movies would make more... and so would the safe, mindless crap. The mindless crap comes ahead still. Some producers and directors really are in it for the art, but the executives who decide what gets made arn't interested in that. All they care aboue is how much the movie will cost, and how much it will make.

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (1)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010750)

Your argument does not follow. With the availability of all content for $0 on P2P networks, that implies that no content is worth paying for. How does $0 content incentivize artists to make anything?

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010900)

For example : I have downloaded Civ 3,4 & 5. I purchased a copy of Civ's 3 and 4 afterwards because I thoroughly enjoyed playing them. I will not be buying a copy of Civ5. I regularly do the same with books, apps, etc. Good content gets rewarded by buying a hardcopy or making a donation, bad content gets nothing but my resentment for wasting my time.

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (4, Interesting)

hipp5 (1635263) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010654)

You're trying to tell me that they didn't make crappy movies and music before the advent of P2P? Because that's absolute bullshit. The only reason why it seems like there were so many great movies and such great music in the past was because we've forgotten all the crap. You're also comparing the yearly volume of recent releases to a back-catalogue containing 100 years worth of good movies and music. I file your comment under "when I was young I used to walk 10 miles to school in the snow".

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (2)

binkzz (779594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010702)

If anyone people who make movies for the love of making good cinema might make more movies, and people who make movies just to cash in might make fewer.

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010716)

Most Hollywood movies were extremely conservative and dumb before there were even VCRs. And piracy reduces revenue for that type of movie the most.

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (1)

Troggie87 (1579051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010874)

You get "crappy" movies because that is what most people enjoy and are willing to pay for. Some people don't care about depth or creativity, they go to the theater to have an experience. Many want to experience a sappy love story, and through that story assimilate those feelings into their life (if only for a time). Some want to see explosions. Some want cheap scares. As an "movie buff" (presumably in the intellectual sense) you are a niche, as it seems most people watch and pay for movies for more primal reasons. Good or bad, thats reality.

Not to mention the math doesn't work out, unless you are claiming all pirates have your taste in movies. If piracy is dragging down the baseline of profitability for Hollywood, then in relative terms the movies you like were going to be much less profitable than the "pay $8 and forget" movies anyway. Hollywood is about $$, they don't give a rats ass about entertaining you. If you want creativity there are plenty of low budget indie directors you could donate to.

Re:Just don't get the P2Ping crowd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010884)

Hollywood isn't creatively conservative, they're just greedy, lazy assholes. Why bother coming up with original stuff if people will ingest the crap they produce by the shovel-load? That's why these days there's nothing more than 70's or 80's remakes, japanese remakes, games turned movies and formulaic mindless plots with explosions, cars chases and gunfire.

The days of movies with real, actual plot are long dead, I'm afraid.

Same thing with music -- why bother actually writing music, or playing real instruments? Just get a computer, have it generate a few simplistic beats and speak something over it at a more or less constant rhythm, auto-tune will do the rest. Voilà, instant hit.

"Researchers" (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010526)

.es

This just in (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010534)

One neckbeard makes 75% of Slashdot posts (including 100% of Trolltalk posts)

They are afraid of the truth. (0)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010548)

I doubt the numbers are nearly this tight. Although I do know that the same people often upload most of the material time after time. I guess they are trusted and enthusiasts. I also see these people change over time...

  I am sure the IRAA and MPAA know this is the case. Surely they do. If I saw it, then they saw it. But let's get real here. They won't do anything about it. And neither will software companies with deep pockets like Microsoft.

  When I run Windows 7 in a virtual machine and use a cd key that "came with it" from ThePirateBay.org, what does one of the 2 updates that don't automatically check include the one that is supposed to look for "hacked" activators? They want you to share (not pirate, this isn't violently taking ships) their poison so that you are not free but a slave to them and at the mercy of their whims. If one couldn't use a "shared" copy, what might happen? LIke I explained to my father last night, he uses Windows because I used Windows. And now, he is moving to Linux. End of story.

eh, ever heard of 'the scene'? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010558)

These people don't really seem to understand the P2P hierarchy. Content gets pirated by groups, who release it to top sites, which sell slots to people and have affiliations to closed torrent trackers. The users of those trackers then leak the stuff to the public p2p networks. So yes, there may be a closed group doing the actual leaking, however, that does not mean the content does not exist and that no-one will take their place once they are gone. It's utterly ridiculous to think you will stop pirating by attacking the lowest part of the food chain.

Re:eh, ever heard of 'the scene'? (4, Funny)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010830)

It's utterly ridiculous to think you will stop pirating by attacking the lowest part of the food chain.

Why not? It worked for the war on drugs.

Oh wait. . .

Re:eh, ever heard of 'the scene'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010836)

These people don't really seem to understand the P2P hierarchy. Content gets pirated by groups, who release it to top sites, which sell slots to people and have affiliations to closed torrent trackers.

Um no? Sites found selling axx, much less leaking to p2p in any form is highly frowned upon and routinely purged.

Re:eh, ever heard of 'the scene'? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011098)

That's how it works for the early-release things, where leaks and screeners rule. But once the movie is out on blu-ray, anyone can make a rip and upload it.

The research is complete garbage (5, Interesting)

rs1n (1867908) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010568)

Here's a quote:

"In our opinion," the authors of the study conclude, "the success of BitTorrent lies in the availability of popular content which is typically protected by copyright law, and people who take the risk of publishing that content do it because they receive an economic benefit. If in the future these users lose their incentive, either because of a decrease in advertising income or due to having to pay very expensive fines, BitTorrent would very likely cease to offer this content, which would make people stop using the application on a massive scale."

These people have no clue how torrents and seeding works. When someone completes a torrent, they can choose to then seed that download. There is no economic incentive there whatsoever. The seeder gets absolutely nothing out of seeding. All it takes is one person to make an initial seed, and then if each downloader joins in seeding that content, then the number of seeds grows exponentially. Anyone can create a torrent, and anyone can seed. These guys make it sound like there is some sort of main repository from which all other downloaders get their torrents.

Re:The research is complete garbage (1)

hipp5 (1635263) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010700)

I do believe that they're talking about people who initially publish files. They're talking about cutting out the drug cartels instead of going for the street dealers. That being said, my understanding was that the initial uploaders are not gaining much economic benefit (where the hell do they get this ad revenue) for there work. I always figured it was more of a notority thing to be someone who releases content.

Re:The research is complete garbage (2)

hipp5 (1635263) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010718)

there work.

Ouch, I've become everything that I hate.

Re:The research is complete garbage (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011052)

I do believe that they're talking about people who initially publish files. They're talking about cutting out the drug cartels instead of going for the street dealers. That being said, my understanding was that the initial uploaders are not gaining much economic benefit (where the hell do they get this ad revenue) for there work. I always figured it was more of a notoriety* thing to be someone who releases content.

The "economic" benefit doesn't have to be financial. The notoriety you speak of is the motivating benefit in the 'filesharing economy'. The authors of TFA either realize this and were referring to it, or they actually think there has to be a direct financial incentive motivating people to upload files.. If they think the latter they didn't research their subject well enough and their conclusions are questionable.

In any case they are at least correct in stating the obvious: people will stop doing something they aren't motivated to do. Not exactly an earth-shattering revelation.

* fixed that for you

Re:The research is complete garbage (1)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010724)

Well, perhaps he is right, and there are "some" that seed with intended benefit. Think the "accidental" release of Paris Hilton's "private" tape. You know there are some entertainment people seeding stuff on purpose somewhere. But you are right, the majority are probably just people who like to share. And sharing is caring.

Re:The research is complete garbage (1)

AhabTheArab (798575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010832)

"In our opinion," the authors of the study conclude, "the success of BitTorrent lies in the availability of popular content which is typically protected by copyright law, and people who take the risk of publishing that content do it because they receive an economic benefit. If in the future these users lose their incentive, either because of a decrease in advertising income or due to having to pay very expensive fines, BitTorrent would very likely cease to offer this content, which would make people stop using the application on a massive scale."

In our opinion

heh.

Re:The research is complete garbage (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010850)

They flat out state that uploaders are compensated through revenue from ads displayed on the sites and from money paid by other users for VIP subscriptions to "get faster downloads". Of course, you didn't have to read that far to smell the bullshit. Right at the beginning, they cite "The Pirate Bay and Mininova" as the sites they use for this material. You know, Mininova. The site that went LEGIT and does not contain any copyright infringing torrent links whatsoever and has not for a year and a half, now.

This doesn't add up.... (4, Insightful)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010602)

If you have such a small number of people posting content, and they are making money (meaning they have accounts which identify them), then they would be easily tracked and prosecuted. How can this really be true?

That said, most people "pass along" content rather than rip it themselves. Is it really possible to tell the difference between a user that passes along content they acquire from some other source using bittorrent vs a user that actually rips content and passes that content along?

If the contributors are also the heaviest users (downloading 75 percent of the content) then it is really unlikely that they are ripping that content in the first place. How would they have the time, and why would they download what they ripped themselves? So if we assume that these "100 users" on these two sites actually contribute 66 percent of the content, and that most of that content isn't actually ripped by them, but acquired via other sources outside these sites, then does that that only 4 or 5 people are really ripping content?

Seriously, none of this makes a great deal of sense. It seems to me that the content flow comes from a much broader bases, and that the active users on these sites are not the same as the active users on other sites.

I see no "take these 100 out and problem solved" magic bullet here. But I'd have to see more details than this article gives to know for sure.

Re:This doesn't add up.... (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010828)

Everyone here has probably heard this, but an IP address does not represent a person. Once you replace person with IP address in the summary, everything makes sense. The best explanation is that people who download like to use a proxy to hide their identity and There are 100 or so really good proxies out there(maybe tor end nodes?). So you have thousands of people sharing using the same IP address. I have no idea what that would do to the torrenting protocol, but it might make it have issues recognizing available resources. I suspect the researchers wanted to be recognized in the news without going into detail, the news agency misunderstood, or they are incompetent researchers.

Re:This doesn't add up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010844)

It make more sense if you read TFA :
"Their analysis demonstrates that a small group of users of these applications (around one hundred) is responsible for 66 percent of the content that is published and 75 percent of the downloads."

So these 100 users upload 66 percent of the content (files/torrents), and this content is responsible for 75 percent of the downloads by others.

Re:This doesn't add up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010996)

What it all means is that there are less than 200 actual people doing all the illegal uploading and downloading on the entire internet.

To those 100 people uploading all the content: (5, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010662)

I'd just like to say, "thank you!"

looks like invented stats (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010706)

I've been on a variety of trackers in the past and I can assure you that 100 users are not responsible for anywhere near 75% of the content available. But even on crappy public trackers like piratebay it can't be that bad.

it may be closer to reality to say that 5% of peers are responsible for 90% of the traffic however. There are always small clusters of high speed seedboxes running on any good tracker.

this makes absolutely no sense (1)

Punto (100573) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010708)

Ignoring all the contradictions from the article, look up any popular movie on any bittorrent site and there's tens of thousands of people downloading it. Are they saying it's the same 100 guys downloading the same file over and over?

Re:this makes absolutely no sense (1)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010838)

Actually, it is probably the same 100 ip addresses...coming from the same few proxies used by the millions of BT users around the world...

Re:this makes absolutely no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010984)

Mod parent insightful, please! I hadn't thought of that, but yeah I was raising an eyebrow at 100 people downloading 75% of ALL bittorrent content. You know the article writer is an idiot if he actually believes that there are 100 people behind 75% of all BT downloads; those "people" must all be superman with supercomputers and super-crazy network throughput or something.

Re:this makes absolutely no sense (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011072)

This is the conclusion I jumped to as well. The fact that TFA does not even examine this possibility is ridiculous.

Totally uninformed. (2)

ikefox (1566973) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010720)

The fact that they were only analyzing Mininova and The Pirate Bay explains the erroneous nature of their results. Those websites don't represent the entirety of BitTorrent - in fact, the real copyright-infringing pirates try to remain unaffiliated with torrent sites entirely, and private trackers represent the majority in terms of data transferrence these days in regards to BitTorrent. These "researchers" obviously know practically nothing about how the torrent tracker heirarchy works. Their article is just a nice source to cite to my friends when they ask me why they shouldn't use TPB or Mininova to download that new Kanye West album.

Re:Totally uninformed. (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010942)

You can't download the new Kanye West album on Minonova, because they ceased their torrent service well over a year ago and have since then only operated as a "content distribution service" of legally licensed content.

http://blog.mininova.org/articles/2009/11/26/mininova-limits-its-activities-to-content-distribution-service/ [mininova.org]

They must have meant uploads. (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010730)

Their analysis demonstrates that a small group of users of these applications (around one hundred) is responsible for 66 percent of the content that is published and 75 percent of the downloads.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Anyone with even a shred of IT knowledge knows that there are a lot of downloaders, far more than the quoted 100, even if that number is limited to 75% of available content. Hell, a quick search of TPB will show single torrents with more peers than 100.

Now, if they meant uploads, then that's slightly more believable, if they're counting each major release group as one "person". But that's a pretty bad typo to make in a paper about IT, enough that it makes me doubt the credibility of anything else in the paper.

Linus Torvalds (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010754)

The worst offender is named Linus Trovalds. He uploads huge files on a regular basis and tens if not hundreds of thousands of people download them. Clearly he is the biggest pirate of them all and must be stopped from distributing other peoples copyrighted works.

P2P Piracy Networks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010772)

The article refers to: "P2P piracy networks", which ones are those? Pretty much the only one I know of is BitTorrent, and that's not a "piracy network", it's just a regular network, but some pirates do use it.

Not plausible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010782)

Something about this "research" is amiss. It is just not plausible that one hundred users are responsible for 75 % of BitTorrent downloads.

100 accounts!!! (4, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010834)

Most of the major uploaders are actually groups of people. They have people responsible for getting content, for ripping content, for packaging and for uploading it. If any of these researchers had a clue what they were talking about they'd have realized that each one of these accounts is backed by at least 25+ people. Even if they did get the person doing the actual upload (which I doubt because that's what they specialize in) the reset of the group would just move on and find someone else to do the upload.

Killing ants with a hammer can work, too. (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010860)

I wish them the best of luck in their effort of killing ants with a hammer. Meanwhile, there are about a zillion other methods in use, and another ten zillion being thought up. Be careful not to ruin your nice marble furniture while hammering at the ants.

Scapegoats (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35010890)

This is just an excuse to target a reasonably sized group and make examples of them to the much larger and harder to 'hit at once' group. This is one of those situations where they are just going to target the small group of people because they can, but in the end, it will only lead to them having to target the 'next' small group of people that miraculously fill their void when they realize "Oh snap! File sharing is still happening at exactly the same level without these 100 people in the mix!". It's people who got paid to head-hunt, trying to show that the money they received was worth it so they continue to get paid to 'head-hunt' in the future. Rediculous, it's like Napster days all over again, it's all fun and games until Grandma is arrested for an Elvis mp3.

Seed box? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010910)

So, a small number of stable and fast seed boxes are used by many uploaders?

Truly, this is news...

You can't stop the signal Mal... (1)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35010940)

So 100 people are getting 75% of the Internet's love from the downloaders. Researchers suggest that if we "disincentiveize" these people, we'll stop 75% of the downloads.

This is bonkers.

Sure, you could smother those 100 people with RIAA-issued pillows, but then the Internet would go to the next best 100 people providing content. Because this is a perfect marketplace, people can move to the best content. Get rid of the best content providers, and you might slightly diminish content quality, but consumer behavior would be the same: download the best available option. There'd be a new group of 100 people that get the download love, and we'd have to get more pillows..

Names of the 100 (1)

turb (5673) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011004)

Hmm so a mere 100 people are responsible for most that is uploaded to BT sites.... their names?

ub3rh4x0r
Al De Boner
PirateBob
Huge Jackman ...

Have these people never seen the movie Sparticus?

Just yesterday... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35011032)

CmdrTaco posted a different study of the same sites claiming that a third (ie 33%) of their content was fake. It now appears that 100 users are responsible for two-thirds of the uploads. Clearly, this suggests that those same 100 users are uploading _all_ of the real content on bittorrent; everyone else is responsible for the fake content.

READ THE LINK - ONLY BASED ON 55K FILES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35011042)

Um, headline is very misleading based on examining the paper itself. They found those percentages based on 55K files. What statistical hash are you smoking to think that you can extrapolate from that to the millions of files available via torrent across all p2p sites?

100 people responsible for 75% of *downloads*??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35011044)

I realise that most of the hollywwod movies and popular MS Win platform warez (windows, photoshop, norton etc) come from just a relatively few sources. That fits with what anyone can observe and makes sense (not that many people have good enough contacts to obtain pre-release movies, not that many people are skilled and interested enough to care about cracking authentication mechanisms and also sharing the product of their work) but 100 people doing 75% of the downloading? This doesn't fit either experience or make sense. Millions of people use bittorrent with public trackers. You can find numerous torrents on public trackers with *thousands* of seeds, even some movies with tens of thousands of seeds. How would a small group of 100 people account for 75% of the downloading? Are they downloading the same content over and over? And why would the same group of people seeding content also be downloading it? This is all nonsensical, isn't it? I rtfa hosted by Carlos III University of Madrid and I can't find the numbers or methodology that support these claims, only the one page summary.

I wonder of the article is really a decent representation of the research, and if the researchers didn't get their data horribly skewed by numerous malicious clients which by their nature offer fake data re content hosted, fulfilling requests, ratios and so on.

Patently Absurd--Run the numbers (4, Informative)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35011176)

The idea that 100 people are responsible for even 10% of all content on P2P networks is laughable. Let's just consider torrents.

The Pirate Bay alone claims that it currently hosts 3,655,124 torrents. 75% of this is ~2.7 million, but lets say that means the 100 have uploaded 2 million torrents.

So in 10 years (bittorrent is less than a decade old), 100 users have uploaded 2 million torrents. That works out as 2000 torrents per user per year. That means each of these 100 people uploaded on average about 5.5 torrents every day.

5.5 torrents uploaded each day, every day for 10 years. That's what it would take to meet these researchers claims.

Assuming that these uploaders are the ultimate source of the illicit data, and that each torrent costs on average, say $10 (assumming they are largely movies and torrents), then each of these users is spending ~$55 a day on content meant for ripping and uploading. That's ~$20,000 a year, and that's before we even consider the time and resources put into ripping and uploading.

The numbers don't add up. Argue 1000 users and it still works out at $2000 a year and 4 torrents a week, both of which numbers I regard as still being too high. 10,000 users would seem far more feasible.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?