Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Leaked MediaDefender Emails Show Student P2P Traffic Down

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the they-are-tending-not-to-copy-that-floppy dept.

Education 197

An anonymous reader writes "The MPAA and the RIAA have been targeting universities in a fury claiming that college students are causing them huge losses. However, some leaked MediaDefender emails show that may be a huge exaggeration. 'I also want to state that I am not for the illegal sharing of files. I am absolutely against it. I just want to make sure that the numbers presented in the media are fair numbers. I have a feeling they aren't fair at all. '"

cancel ×

197 comments

frosty piss (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21635613)

niggertits.

Re:frosty piss (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21635885)

heh, you said niggertits.
.=--
:::: -',    I HOPE WE ARE ALL NOW IN TOTAL AGREEMENT
:::,_  `    THAT THIRD WORLD BOOBS ARE TRULY
.:::. '(     A VAST UNTAPPED RESOURCE
.::;'.  \_
.:,     ,-=..._
':  ,     c`  )
  |  | `  _,'`Y
  |  :       || 

Actually... (5, Informative)

adona1 (1078711) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635635)

They don't show that student P2P traffic is down, just that the methods that the MAFIAA use to give numbers of students using P2P are flawed and the numbers are probably lower than they say. Given their sterling track record with manipulating numbers, it's hardly surprising. Plus, it really only deals with the Gnutella network, whereas most of the traffic nowadays would probably be using Bittorrent.

Problem solved. (3, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635813)

Just get all the nation's leading universities to drop their backbone connections in favor of Comcast cable. I promise you, you'll see a huge reduction in network utilization, and BitTorrent connections won't trouble your admins any longer.

Re:Problem solved. (3, Informative)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636325)

This guy is an idiot

I realize some of the EDU IP addresses may be from a private NAT (Network Address Translation) which enables multiple hosts on a private network to access the Internet using a single public IP address. It is safe to say the numbers are probably a bit higher than the data shows but I wouldn't imagine it would be significantly higher.
My 10000 student school has only a few dozen IPs. Yeah, a "bit higher".

Re:Problem solved. (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636435)

MOD PARENT UP. Now that's an insightful, if a bit acidic, observation if ever I saw one.

Re:Actually... (4, Funny)

VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635833)

just that the methods that the MAFIAA use to give numbers of students using P2P are flawed and the numbers are probably lower than they say.


RIAA fudges numbers, exaggerates case, claims huge losses; no plans to reimburse the artists in question. News at 11.

Re:Actually... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21636281)

VirusEqualsVeryYes FAG!!!!

Re:Actually... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636785)

... no plans to reimburse the artists in question.

And why should they? The artists in question sold their souls and their copyrights when they signed on with a record label. Unless they refused to sign over their copyrights, they have no stake in this. Whoever holds the rights now is entitled to any revenue (presumably the various labels), so that's not really the issue.

The problem is the fundamental hypocrisy of the RIAA's stance, which is that they're vigorously defending artist's rights, when in fact they're doing nothing of the sort. That particular PR bubble has long since been burst and I'm surprised they keep repeating it, but then again, I don't suppose they really care what we think anyway. We're only customers after all, and not their customers at that. The studios are their customers.

Re:Actually... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21635871)

Plus, the fact that since most of the IP blocks MediaDefender used to clog P2P networks (discovered from the leaks) are banned from almost everywhere. Lists from PeerGuardian are an example and most of the torrent index sites have implemented filtering systems.
It's not that students stopped pirating, it's that they are progressively finding out how to detect if a torrent is safe.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21636005)

Plus, it really only deals with the Gnutella network, whereas most of the traffic nowadays would probably be using Bittorrent.


That's the issue with getting any reliable numbers. Are we dealing with Gnutella [limewire.org] ? Bittorrent [bittorrent.org] ? Fasttrack [kazaa.com] ? eMule [emule-project.net] ? Or, wait, how about a darknet ala WASTE [sourceforge.net] ? With the very last option, no one outside of the circle of trust would have any idea of what was going on. My personal favorite would be to attend a Fuck The RIAA party where people show up and transfer directly between computers; no network whatsoever. Not to mention, different methods are popular in different places. It's tough to quantify a combination of personal sharing and third generation p2p networks. A group of liberally-minded people condensed into a dorm with a smattering of computer science majors don't always show up in statistics.

-Not a darknet organizer, maybe

Re:Actually... (1)

chaoticgeek (874438) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637005)

On my campus last year they shut down two servers held on campus to share music with people who had a university IP... My school has like an entire B address they bought quite long ago so they have every port on campus set to a different IP addy. So he filtered anyone who had a university IP could access this server and download crap from anyone who was connected to it. I'd say before it got busted there was around 1 TB of stuff that was floating around there. It got busted and he set up another one with one of his friends but it got hit soon after it went up too. I'm sure he was kicked out though.

Re:Actually... (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636101)

oh yeah, try factoring in the fact that college students couldn't buy all the music they downloaded without winning the lottery. They mathematically do not have enough money let alone would they actually want to spend that amount on music. So it's even more horribly exaggerated than they've exaggerated it

Re:Actually... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636153)

College students usually have lots of credit cards. The credit card companies send preapproved applications in the mail by the buttload to college students -- especially since they know they'll wind themselves knee deep in credit and have to work half their careers just to pay it off. The interest they'll make off that alone is worth the few deadbeats they'll have.

Re:Actually... (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636773)

The ability to pay for what you steal isn't really a factor, you know. Nice red herring, though. It's a pretty good argument to distract the weak minded.

Re:Actually... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21636119)

So if the traffic has moved to Bit Torrent, on what basis do you claim the piracy statistics are "probably lower". Oh yeah, your opinion is biased, as your moronic MAFIAA term illustrates. Copyright is in the constitution, retard. People participating in piracy are the new ad-hoc mafia. /. moderation is broken as shown by the rating this comment gets.

Peer Guardian Use Up. (3, Interesting)

Tatarize (682683) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636143)

There's a number of P2P sites, and P2P programs which don't allow connections to MediaDefender or other such P2P sites. Personally I've seen their IPs end up in the blocked list of Peer Guardian more than a few times.

I think perhaps they are experiencing a little bit of Heisenberg's at the macrolevel: By observing it, they are changing it. Send enough annoying letters saying X had Y media on X's computer on a P2P site as discovered by this IP address: Z, well, you're going to get programs cropping up to prevent any connections to Z.

Re:Actually... (2, Interesting)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636203)

The bit in the article that made me laugh: "Well, I couldn't feel comfortable downloading anything from Gnutella that's more than 4mb, so I'm just searching and searching. Then I start to think, if I'm on there researching, maybe that's what other people are on there doing." and uses that as one extrapolation as to how the numbers are inaccurate, when in reality, I think the numbers of connections that are on Gnutella "just to research what's there to download, and who's downloading, but not actually downloading themselves" is probably as high (or, rather, low) as "the number of connections that are on Gnutella exclusively to share Linux ISOs".

Re:Actually... (2, Insightful)

alphaseven (540122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636315)

Plus, it really only deals with the Gnutella network, whereas most of the traffic nowadays would probably be using Bittorrent.
I think we're also seeing a shift away from P2P and towards file hosting sites like Megaupload/Badongo/Zshare/Rapidshare etc, especially for newer albums.

Re:Actually... (1)

garbletext (669861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636841)

Right. All this shows is that college students are smart enough not to use Gnutella.

Re:Actually... (3, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637117)

02/01/07 342854 8398 2.40% 2.45
04/12/07 291001 7175 2.50% 2.47
06/14/07 265504 2475 0.93% 0.93
07/14/07 199333 1303 0.65% 0.65


Most colleges, on semesters, empty out in early May (1st or 2nd week). I want to see the data for 5/07 and then every month up through 12/07 when it lets out again.

This blogger might have found the cycle of enrollment flow and nothing more -- as much as I don't like to admit it ;)

Bogus (5, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635643)

The MPAA and the RIAA have been targeting universities in a fury claiming that college students are causing them huge losses.

This is a bogus claim anyway, everyone knows college kids (aka Students) are piss poor and couldn't afford to buy the music even if they didn't download it.
Now they're just piss poor and bored.

Re:Bogus (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636183)

Now they're just piss poor and bored.

Pissed, poor, bored, depressed and worried because they are just wating to be sued for some songs they downloaded in 2000.

Re:Bogus (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636199)

Instead of getting bored, they should be getting pissed. They are throwing away an opportunity to overcome a great challenge. Later, they'll be raising their families and not care about such silliness anymore, and of course keep reelecting the same politicians who brought all this upon them because they were promised "foreclosure relief" or victory in Iraq, or they'll either ban or mandate gay marriage, drugs, flag burning, bla bla bla. And the next generation will say something naughty...*sigh* Now I'm bored.

Re:Bogus (4, Insightful)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636475)

I call bullshit wishful thinking.

I am in college, and I've been to the campuses of MANY others, for one reason or another, and while it's true that you've got some college students eking by on savings and loans, being very judicious in their spending, the vast majority are supported by middle-class parents, and have plenty of disposable income.

No, indeed, while I am no fan of the MAFIAA, there IS a very real problem with our young people and their perceptions on copyright. The general consensus is that if they didn't have to filch if off a store shelf, it's morally a-ok, and this mentality pervades every college campus I've ever been to. I'll leave the psychological analysis of the why to people better qualified than I, but it is undeniable that the average college student thinks nothing wrong with piracy. It's perceived as a victimless crime.

Seriously, if you can spend thousands boozing yourself up each year, you can't make the excuse that you're too poor to buy DVDs.

Re:Bogus (4, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636937)

No, indeed, while I am no fan of the MAFIAA, there IS a very real problem with our young people and their perceptions on copyright.

Either that, or there is a real problem with our copyright law.

Re:Bogus (1)

ex0a (1199351) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636967)

Seriously, if you can spend thousands boozing yourself up each year, you can't make the excuse that you're too poor to buy DVDs.
Whether or not you have the money to spend on DVDs is irrelevant if you don't buy them to begin with. While this may not be true for a lot of people, the majority of people I frequently hang around generally don't purchase DVDs or CDs unless it's really something they like (which seems to not be the case with a lot of the new releases lately). What about the user who doesn't purchase CDs, but downloads them by the hundreds each year? Sure, that person isn't paying for the CD which technically is stealing, but the artist wouldn't have received any income from the user to begin with. I'm not trying to justify piracy of music and movies, but I do want to make it very clear that the artists/labels and movie companies aren't getting money from a portion of these users whether they pirate the media or not. I know that I've told a few of my friends about new movies/music that they didn't know was out or had never heard of and the end result was them purchasing the CD/DVD. I wasn't going to purchase it to begin with and wouldn't have ever heard of some of them without them becoming available on the internet. Again let me make it clear that I'm not advocating the piracy of media today, but I do think that the damages that the MPAA/RIAA are claiming are insanely high compared to the actual damages, IF ANY (in some cases). This is a new era where people don't have a 1,000 CD collection on their shelf taking up half of one of the walls in their room. This is the age of ipods that hold insane amounts of music/movies and huge hard drives fed by fast bandwidth. These old tactics of marketing CDs and DVDs are dieing and it's not because of piracy.. It's the evolution of the internet. Survival of the fittest. IMHO, the only reason the RIAA/MPAA are trying to exploit these users with the insane damage costs they claim is because they know that their time is going to be short-lived, and they have to make every bit of money they can while they can.

Re:Bogus (3, Interesting)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637129)

Whether or not you have the money to spend on DVDs is irrelevant if you don't buy them to begin with.

Except these people have tens, if not hundreds of movies stored on their hard drives. I know of some outliers who even have thousands. Clearly they consume the media, and the vast majority have paid nothing for it. This isn't the case of the MAFIAA going after people who have no supposed interest in their products, trying to extract money out of them.

I frequently hang around generally don't purchase DVDs or CDs unless it's really something they like

Ah, the old "new stuff is crap, I don't pay for crap" excuse, which is valid so long as I can't catch you with the new Britney Spears album on your disk. If you're serious about only buying stuff you like, then only CONSUME stuff you like. Don't justify your piracy of a movie or album because "it's not worth the $X". For movies especially, there are plenty of avenues to avoid paying full-price, including renting the DVD.

but I do want to make it very clear that the artists/labels and movie companies aren't getting money from a portion of these users whether they pirate the media or not

Except the vast majority of college students aren't on a moral crusade against labels and studios that rip of the actual creative artists. Most students I've discussed this with don't even bother using it as an excuse, much less actually believing it. Like I said, piracy on campus is treated as a victimless crime, not "sticking it to the Man" of any sort.

Re:Bogus (1)

Nuitari The Wiz (1123889) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637277)

Seriously, if you can spend thousands boozing yourself up each year, you can't make the excuse that you're too poor to buy DVDs.
Of course you can. Booze can't be downloaded.

Re:Bogus (2, Insightful)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636565)

This is a bogus claim anyway, everyone knows college kids (aka Students) are piss poor and couldn't afford to buy the music even if they didn't download it.

When I was in college plenty students had large CD collections - that was when Napster was just getting on the scene, though. Have you ever been to college?

Anyway, being poor doesn't give a right to pirate/steal.

Re:Bogus (2, Informative)

neokushan (932374) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636687)

Perhaps it's different in America, but here in the UK there's no financial block to becoming a student. If your family isn't moderately well-off, middle class or whatever, then the government pretty much pays all of your tuition fees for you and gives you just enough money to live on. Just enough.
I know this because I am, in fact, one of these students from a poor background and I know that on multiple occasions I was literally counting the pennies to try and make it through to the next loan instalment. And the real kicker? I don't even drink!

Just mod -1 asshole. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21635647)

Thought I had a FP. I'm a dumb asshole for putting this up here. And yay for niggeritis and frosty piss!

Not where I live.... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21635649)

It's not down at my school....
Just yesterday someone was talking about how they have 6000 illegal downloads. Someone else said "Only 6000?!"

Not kidding.

Re:Not where I live.... (2)

jim.hansson (1181963) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635765)

is it only in USA the MAFIAA is threatning schools and universities or is it happening in other places? I have not heard of any thing here in sweden, the only thing is one time a BSA rep came to my brothers school and had a 1 hour talk.

Tongue in Cheek? (2, Interesting)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635667)

Of course I don't want to download anything that would be considered illegal You're apparently a college student who doesn't pirate stuff? Are we supposed to take you seriously? You might as well tell us you're the son of God come back to earth to end world hunger and put an end to war, as that would be just as believable. What do you take slashdot for?

I only kid. I do however think this is less than noteworthy. I'm pretty sure it's been widely known that the RIAA types have inflated their statistics for some time now, what with their formula of x number of pirated copies = x number of sales lost and then x sales lost * y unreasonable charge == z unrealistic losses.

Re:Tongue in Cheek? (1)

surgen (1145449) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635755)

I am, however, an employee of a University and am personally concerned about my university as well as other universities out there.

Re:Tongue in Cheek? (1)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635787)

My bad, I just skimmed the article. The whole "RIAA isn't using FAIR STATISTICS!" seemed pretty hashed to me, so I figured a joke was in order. My bad though.

Gives a new meaning to extortion. (1)

pikine (771084) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636509)

I'm pretty sure it's been widely known that the RIAA types have inflated their statistics for some time now, what with their formula of x number of pirated copies = x number of sales lost and then x sales lost * y unreasonable charge == z unrealistic losses.
That's the formula they use for PR to make them look sheepish. The formula they use in court is z unrealistic losses + c counts of infringement * s statutory damage = d claimed damage. However, since z / d is very close to 0, you can consider the actual formula to just be c * s = d. You're welcome to settle at 2% of claimed damage, but that's still several magnitudes higher than z unrealistic damage.

In Soviet Russia ... (2, Funny)

Arabani (1127547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635673)

... numbers distort the RIAA! But seriously, I doubt any of us are surprised that the RIAA's lying through its teeth. It's been suspected since, oh, just about forever. It's nice to have some supporting documentation, though.

What is the next headline? (1)

Sean0michael (923458) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635699)

So if this new data becomes widely published and accepted, how will the RIAA/MPAA react? Do they say "Our anti-piracy methods and DRM are working, and here's the proof"? That would be exactly what we don't want to see happen.

Hopefully more data can be gathered and published showing not only what the real numbers are, but how the RIAA/MPAA get their numbers. If the EDUs of the world understand that piracy isn't as prevalent as claimed, we can hopefully see fewer DMCA letters and more advances in the fair use fronts.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. (4, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636295)

If the numbers went down, the MAFIAA will claim that their anti-piracy efforts are working. This means that not only will those anti-piracy efforts not go away, but people are much more likely to take them seriously with their next claim.

If the numbers didn't go down, the MAFIAA will claim that piracy is rampant, and use that as an excuse to do even more DRM, and get even more laws passed for them.

It's called spin. Let me try some of my own:

If the numbers went down, I claim that this proves that piracy isn't as much of a threat to their profits as they thought, and therefore, DRM should end.

If the numbers didn't go down, I claim that this proves that people are so sick and tired of the MAFIAA's bullshit on their legitimate products that they're willing to turn to piracy.

Here's my trump card, though: If we really can't tell who's right, the default position should be consumer freedom.

Re:Damned if we do, damned if we don't. (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636593)

Here's my trump card, though: If we really can't tell who's right, the default position should be consumer freedom.
Have you tried taking back a freedom you gave someone? It's a lot harder than not giving it in the first place. There's a reason pretty much all the consumer rights have come through law - if it was up to the corporations they wouldn't let you do anything except the perscribed use. Anything and everything could be a potential revenue stream, so why give away something for "free" at all? And DRM does a wonderful job of making sure people have to pay for everything they do. There's a reason it's not copyright management - it's meddling with all your rights.

Re:Damned if we do, damned if we don't. (2, Interesting)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637041)

What if piracy AND sales go down?

Can we just assume that no one wants their shitty products and move on? There are literally only three bands I have bought the CD's for in the past 7 years and one of them is from Europe. As for DVD's except for the LOTR extended box and Disney (I'm an addict I need help) I haven't bought a single new dvd in the same time.

Seriously the only thing I've even thought about pirating recently is porn and a couple computer games cause in Iraq if it isn't digital delivery it's a pain in my ass.

Most of those games I'm just waiting til I get home to see if I'll even have time to play them to get, new parent and all.

There's still a lot of copyright infringement (4, Insightful)

compumike (454538) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635711)

Just take a look at this recent opinion piece to MIT's newspaper [mit.edu] . Here's a student who believes that "the free flow of information" (as he says twice) is the ultimate good. Lots of students still don't understand why copyright exists. In fact, some will even try to explain that physical property is the only kind that should have value. It's totally mind-boggling, even when these students are the ones who will be going out and making the next generation of intellectual works.

Even the GPL and all copyleft mechanisms rely on copyright laws. If people want their wishes as content creators to be respected (whether that is to allow some forms of redistribution, like CC-NC, or not, like "All rights reserved"), they need to respect copyright law and not subvert it.

--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (1)

deftcoder (1090261) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635799)

Even the GPL and all copyleft mechanisms rely on copyright laws.
Which is why, in the spirit of *truly* free software, many young professional software devleopers, such as myself, prefer the BSD-style licenses.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (2, Informative)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635931)

Which still rely on copyright.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (0)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636197)

Meh. The BSD style licenses only exist because people are still paranoid about being sued for "defective software". Which is basically what the BSD style licenses protect the author from. To paraphrase: do whatever the hell you want with this code, just don't sue me. Which is funny of course, because what was questionably possible back when free distribution of software was young and worthy of significant worry is absolutely not the case now. If someone tried to sue you for providing them with defective software, for free, they would be laughed out of court.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (3, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636227)

Some people also care about being credited for their work.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637169)

Unless you're using the outmoded four-clause or "advertising clause" BSD license, the BSD style licenses will not give you credit for your work.. although I suppose someone could consider a footnote in the documentation to be "credit", but its legal purpose is to ensure that people who distribute the software pass along the disclaimer.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21637013)

The BSD license is for people who like getting credit for their work, as well as offering a lot of freedom (freedom as in libre) to the licensee.

With the advent of the GPL v3, businesses who have legit trade secrets have to choose between worrying if one of the mainly program modules will go GPL v3 and require disclosure of everything should a customer want... and commercial licenses of modules.

For example, if I have a secret timing algorithm that is used in a machine I'm selling to a customer in an automatic bread baking machine. If just *one* of the modules in the embedded Linux distro should decide to be swapped to GPL v3 by its author, all the Linux embedded code, and the non disclosed timing has to be given to the customer at request, else the customer can sue.

This is why companies are pitching Linux and other GPL based embedded software and going with Windows CE or a BSD based solution. Its not that CE is such a blockbuster, its that a user can't sue a company into bankruptcy because they didn't give every single trade secret when the user bought a product. To boot, if a company is publically traded, or is under contract with one that is, due to SOX, it may mean a lengthy time in the slammer for failing the due diligence check.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637281)

FUD. First of all, if you obtain a piece of code under the GPLv2, the author can't retroactively revoke your license and force you to comply with the GPLv3.

Second, even with GPLv2 or v3 code on the bread-making machine, the software is not monolithic. You can comply with the terms on the GPL-licensed portions and retain your own proprietary code. How else could non-GPL software ship with a Linux distribution?

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21635841)

>It's totally mind-boggling, even when these students are the ones who will be going out and making the next generation of intellectual works.

I wouldn't worry about it. Its easy to be idealistic when you have nothing to protect. They'll sing a very different tune when there's money involved. LOL

Remember, the hippies eventually turned into the very Establishment they despised.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (3, Insightful)

ricebowl (999467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635867)

If people want their wishes as content creators to be respected (whether that is to allow some forms of redistribution, like CC-NC, or not, like "All rights reserved"), they need to respect copyright law and not subvert it.

You say 'subvert,' I suggest 'revise.' If a large portion of a community disregards the copyright laws as currently written, does that imply that a large portion of a community needs to be punished/made to pay, or that the copyright laws need to be re-written?

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636103)

Well, are we talking just a "large proportion" or do we mean "vast majority"? I think it's the latter myself.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636149)

the popularity of breaking a particular law should not be the basis of rewriting that law. Laws should be rewritten to better serve society while minimizing any negative impact on the individual. In the case of copyright law, it *does* need a complete reworking but not because of the number of people breaking said laws. It's because they do more to hinder creative works than protecting them.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (5, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636189)

Actually, the popularity of a law is its /very basis/ for legitimacy, at least in a democratic society. Who gets to decide what policy can "better service society" except the very members of that society? The law should reflect common morality, not some notion three guys in a room decided was best.

Every time the law has been used as a club to force the public to accept a minority moral position, it's failed to have the desired effect. Remember learning about the prohibition?

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (2, Insightful)

StopKoolaidPoliticsT (1010439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636461)

Every time the law has been used as a club to force the public to accept a minority moral position, it's failed to have the desired effect. Remember learning about the prohibition?
Prohibition, otherwise known as the Eighteenth Amendment, required 2/3rds of both houses of Congress, and 3/4ths of the states to pass it(Rhode Island was the only state to reject it). It was hardly the minority moral position. That said, it was subverted by the minority position, but not before we got the wonderfully powerful FBI to fight them. It was ultimately repealed with the Twenty First Amendment after twenty some years as citizens grew tired of the racketeering and other problems it was causing.

Also, I know it's common to confuse democracy and republicanism today, but we are a republic precisely to protect the rights of the minority from a simple plurality. As prohibition shows, it doesn't always stop the political winds of the day, but it's far better than simply changing things on the fickleness of the voters at any given time. For as much as you and I dislike the tactics of the RIAA and/or MPAA, remember, they're in bed with the rest of the media and could just as easily start a movement against something you hold dear (say, open source software) if we were a true democracy.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21636725)

Not to troll, but are you defending the institution of slavery? The Holocaust? People can be morally wrong in large numbers.

Property is a fundamental natural right. Just because it is easier to steal music off the Internet and not get caught doesn't mean it is any more moral than stealing any other property.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (3, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636913)

You have a point. I'm not advocating mob rule. A representative government should act like a shock absorber for democracy and prevent sudden fits of passion from leading to bad decisions. Arguably, Prohibition was a failure of that damping mechanism.

But what you're missing here is that society itself defines right and wrong. We think slavery is wrong today, but when it was popular, it wasn't considered wrong. When public opinion changed hard enough, for long enough, slavery ended. (Granted, a little less elegantly than we would have liked.)

You can't judge a past society by our own morals. What are we supposed to do, live our lives based on what people 200 years from now will think? What if we guess wrong?

I don't know why you brought the holocaust into this discussion. That program was a secret project concocted by an insane, totalitarian government. It was not a popular movement.

Also, copyright is not property [gnu.org] . At best, it's a pragmatic bargain between artists and the public, and it terms are no more fixed, and no more sacred, than the income tax rate.

If the terms of this contract really did constitute a "fundamental" right, what would give Disney, err, Congress the authority to extend copyright by 20 years, every 20 years?

Point is, like you like it or not, we live a representative democracy. And public opinion is rapidly shifting in favor of weakening copyright. If those in power continue to ignore that shift, they will not long remain in power.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637111)

yeah good thing the majority has never been wrong before...

Actually, the popularity of a law is its /very basis/ for legitimacy, at least in a democratic society.
holy s--- batman! Laws should never ever be written solely because of mob rule, there should be an actual logical reason for them to exist!

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (3, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637171)

Yes, most of us do not disagree completely with notion of copyright as a concept, but rather the particularly onerous and unbalanced implementation which has emerged in the first world in general and the United States in particular from about 1975 onward. Copyright is supposed to strike a balance between producers and consumers but how is it balanced to say that all of the works copyrighted in a single human lifetime will not be enjoyed by that same person in the public domain in his lifetime? In fact the balance has tilted so far in favor of the copyright holders that people in general, and college students in particular, are in open rebellion against a system which they perceive is no longer fair. They choose to act outside they system because the laws are so broken and the deck so stacked against them with regard to having those laws changed.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (4, Interesting)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636185)

Lots of students still don't understand why copyright exists.
It's easy to understand _why_ copyright exists, but that doesn't mean that copyright is a good idea in the first place.

Lawmakers often write lofty goals such as "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", but merely writing this doesn't make it so.

For example, if somebody wrote that we must subsidise deep underground gold mining operations "to promote the progress of technology to fly to mars", it would be obvious that they are full of shit.

The fact is that "promoting the progress of science and useful arts" is not verifiably helped by copyright law, there's no evidence: nada. zip. zilch.

Instead, copyright is simply one of the arbitrary economic rules we live under and that we inherited from our ancestors. Some people like it, because they have lucrative property contracts based upon it. Other people don't like it, as they don't have lucrative contracts.

What's changed in the 21st century is that those who don't like it are finding it easier to simply ignore copyright, and those who like it are whining about it.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (1)

ringo74 (970328) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636249)

Lots of students still don't understand why copyright exists. In fact, some will even try to explain that physical property is the only kind that should have value.
I actually share with the idea that only physical property has any kind of value or, in other words, that the so-called "intellectual property" is a myth. Yes, I'm an intellectual worker, making a (pretty good) living. You are very free to disagree, but I really don't see what is so "totally mind-boggling" about it. BTW, I don't think that there would be any trouble "trying" to explain it as you suggest - to the contrary, I believe my arguments against copyright, to which I came after many years of scepticism and pro-IP attitude, are sensible.

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (2, Insightful)

azrider (918631) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636771)

I believe my arguments against copyright, to which I came after many years of scepticism and pro-IP attitude, are sensible.
Ok, try this on for size:

I spend a year (or more) writing a novel. My income depends on the advance my publisher gives me (if I am lucky), as well as royalties from additional sales. The novel is published and put in the book stores, priced at $25.
You come along and copy it, then sell it in the same book stores for $20.
I now have to pay my publisher back the advance due to lack of sales.

Now, is copyright good or bad?

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636323)

What I think you're missing is that the only way to envforce draconian copyright laws would be to restrict what individuals can do on the internet in a draconian way.  It is a far lesser evil for people to trade files, than to live in a world where we cannot.

Err, what are you complaining about again? (4, Interesting)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636571)

Just take a look at this recent opinion piece to MIT's newspaper. Here's a student who believes that "the free flow of information" (as he says twice) is the ultimate good. Lots of students still don't understand why copyright exists.

Oh, some of us understand just fine. It's the part where people don't agree with how the law is written or enforced that get you into problem territory.

In fact, some will even try to explain that physical property is the only kind that should have value. It's totally mind-boggling, even when these students are the ones who will be going out and making the next generation of intellectual works.

No, they usually say that IP isn't really property because it's not truly rivalrous. Sure, the law creates rights that are in rivalrous in an artificial way, but you can have two people listen to the same tune whereas two people can't eat the same grape. You may have heard people refer to IP as "imaginary property" recently. It's not because they don't know what IP is supposed to stand for, but because they don't agree with it.

It's totally mind-boggling, even when these students are the ones who will be going out and making the next generation of intellectual works.

Mind-boggling? That sounds more like a statement of ignorance to me. I don't have any trouble understanding why they'd think that, nor do I have trouble understanding those with views like yours. When I hear that something is "mind-boggling" I usually find out that people are trying to ascribe intelligence to something (or someone) that lacks it, or that they haven't thought something through. In this case, it would appear to be the latter.

Even the GPL and all copyleft mechanisms rely on copyright laws. If people want their wishes as content creators to be respected (whether that is to allow some forms of redistribution, like CC-NC, or not, like "All rights reserved"), they need to respect copyright law and not subvert it.

The GPL IS a subversion of copyright law after a fashion. RMS wrote against that notion that we need copyright because it's used to enforce the GPL quite specifically in one of his essays [gnu.org] (yes, you can't enforce the GPL without copyright law, but you don't really need it, either). You might want to talk to the man who wrote it before you make claims like that. I did. [1]

Anyhow, to get back on topic, I don't see how you can say that not supporting copyright law makes them an infringer. I also don't think that that essay you linked to was written out of ignorance. It's written because people are fed up with this crap.

Perhaps you haven't yet realized this, but the more laws we make, the more criminals there are. Obviously, the more we criminalize the things people are already doing, the more people who are going to break them. And you can't have fewer than zero people breaking a law, so adding to the laws will certainly never create fewer criminals. The point isn't the ridiculous notion that we could just abolish all laws and have "zero" criminals. Some things, after all, are worth the cost of criminalizing them. But it's a mistake to think that laws are without cost. And here, a reasonable person can make the case that we're simply better off if we don't criminalize something, whether or not we like or agree with it.

Of course, you seem to find that "mind-boggling" :] I suggest you think it through a little more. The notion was not formed without the use of rational thought, so an intelligent person like you should be able to understand it... right?

[1] To prove it, I'll point out that I also read the confusing words manifesto. Whereas RMS would like us all to stop using the word, I have chosen to subvert it with the term "Imaginary Property" not unlike how RMS chose to subvert copyright with the GPL rather than hoping to abolish it. RMS disagrees with me about that term, BTW, in that it still lumps together at least three disparate areas of law, but you'd have a hard time finding someone with whom he agrees about everything :]

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (2, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636935)

You're thinking too narrowly. You see us as working against our own best interests, undermining the very thing, copyright, that will empower us to make a living. But copyright is only a means, and a poor one at that. We need a better means. We aren't going to get a better means as long as we keep fighting over the impossible task of how to enforce copyright rather than hash out and try other ways. Another way, much older than copyright, and with plenty of its own problems, is patronage. Mozart didn't depend on copyright. Far from seeing copyright as the One True Way to earn a living in the arts and sciences, we actually see it and similar law as serious barriers, constantly draining resources and distracting attention towards unprofitable legal exercises.

copyleft mechanisms rely on copyright

Ahh, you bring up the old assertion that copyleft needs copyright. No it doesn't. Yes, copyleft makes it difficult for someone to make a few changes to gain a competitive advantage, then keep it all secret and compete unfairly. Copyright law is merely the handiest tool to stop that kind of cheating. If there was no copyright law, such a tactic would still be unethical, and could be specifically outlawed, in the same way that the 14th and 15th Amendments outlaw specific tricks used to disenfranchise the newly freed. The 13th Amendment ban on slavery doesn't depend on slavery to uphold the principle that there shouldn't be slavery! The GPL doesn't need copyright any more than Lincoln needed slavery or (what the heck, I've already Godwinned this, may as well make it official), Churchill needed Hitler. Liberate the information!

Re:There's still a lot of copyright infringement (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637463)

Yes but people should be paid TO CREATE information not paid FOR INFORMATION THEY ARE RESTRICTING FROM PUBLIC USE.

It's pretty simple really.

maybe there are other explanations (4, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635729)

  • students have found ways to not be discovered
  • the students have got all the stuff they want
  • there's nothing much worth downloading at present
  • (my favourite) The RIAA are getting tired of the "war" so they're engineering a victory. Look! our stats say we've won - we can stop now.
  • possibly the stats are over the summer, when the colleges were empty
Just like house prices, you can't draw any real conclusions from a single data point. Give it a year and see if there's still a downward trend or if this was just a blip

Re:maybe there are other explanations (3, Informative)

Hemogoblin (982564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635925)

Well the guy's data [mediadefen...enders.com] is from July, so it seems you're right on that last point.

Re:maybe there are other explanations (1)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636763)

Let me add another point to your list:
  • The majority of college students[1] don't live in dorms which are on the university's network

    I'd bet that the vast majority of college students who don't live in dorms still have broadband internet access via Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, local ISPs, whoever. I certainly did when I lived off-campus during college.

    [1] http://www.alternet.org/rights/70021/ [alternet.org] - tracing this quote back a couple of articles: "since less than 20 percent of college students live on campus and use the residence hall networks, this means that less than 4 percent of the infringers are using campus networks, and they are responsible for less than 9 percent of the losses. Over 91 percent of the claimed losses are on commercial networks."

I wonder. (5, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635797)

I wonder how many students at technical colleges and universities are using BitTorrent to download Linux ISOs, free software packages, etc...

I know that's what I use it for (no, I'm not kidding).

Re:I wonder. (1)

stevenvi (779021) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635937)

Lucky duck.

When I was in college I was not allowed to use BitTorrent to download Linux, I had to get it the old fashioned way using a direct download. At my school, they had BT traffic throttled to 1 KB/s max.

Re:I wonder. (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635965)

I could have made my post a little more clear :). I'm in school, but not in college. My school is presently a "C-school" in the Navy. Since I'm married, I live off-base and have business-class cable at my house.

That sucks about the throttling. I guess we should go ahead and outlaw all guns, too, since somebody might use one to commit a crime...

Re:I wonder. (1)

TheSpengo (1148351) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636215)

And that's what protocol encryption is for. ;)

That happened to me... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636329)

So I encrypted the protocol, and downloaded at 10 mbits. On a good day, I could saturate that -- and that's the 10 mbits that went into my dorm. Other dorms might've had 100 mbits, I'm not sure.

Of course, I wasn't downloading Linux ISOs with that.

I am shocked (3, Funny)

AlphaLop (930759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635803)

That so many of you would even insinuate that those benevolent guardians of the artist known as the R.I.A.A. and the M.P.A.A. would ever be less then truthful. Shocking, just plain shocking.

I gotta go shower now, for some reason I feel so dirty....

Showering won't cut it, buddy. (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636225)

That was just wrong. Either take a nice bleach bath, or immediately commence Mortification of the Flesh [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I am shocked (1)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636237)

Unless you're planning to shower with acid, I don't foresee that dirt coming off anytime soon.

Thank you Captain Renault (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637417)

Not much to say here. He just reminded me of Casablanca.

MPAA/RIAA/Media defender (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21635919)

must be neo-cons. So many lies, they do not know how to keep it straight.

out of touch (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635933)

so the bottom line is that an industry whose sales are dropping are not only out of touch with their market, they are out of touch with reality as well.

someone wake me from this dream.

Business plan (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635939)

  1. Find a bunch of corporate PHBs who fear new technology will disrupt their market share.
  2. Put together statistics showing them how much money is slipping away.
  3. Collect fees from them for a service that will reduce these losses.
  4. Put together new statistics showing the reduction in losses, thanks to their generous contributions.
  5. ????
  6. Profit!

p2p (0, Offtopic)

ralph1 (900228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21635957)

encrypted p2p email up.

As a University Student... (3, Insightful)

RSA7474 (1163263) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636051)

I have been downloading using the Gnutella network, newsgroups, usenet, and torrents since early highschool.. but I am an exception; being a computer science major.

Gnutella market became huge when I was in highschool.. which was Napster... that is when most students learned and starting using this tool. It has really been the last few years that most people I know are using other means of downloading besides Gnutella network; but still a majority do that are not computer literate. I have taught several peers how to use torrents and most now not use it.

I don't know anyone that does not do any illegal downloading; but this is generally music/videos. I can see the majority of illegal music/video downloading being students as most do not have the funds, or care enough to pay for the music. Most adult music is generally mainstream and thus bought from mainstream MPAA and RIAA suppliers, being HMV, Walmart, etc.. A large percentage of students music will be the TOP billboard hits but general interest in non-mainstream music is generally more prevalent in comparison to adult; thus being where a majority of music downloading and sharing comes into effect.

From my understanding and evaluation of peers, is that most know the dangers of illegal downloading and know that some sort of precaution is needed. As the majority of suits against illegal downloading are against users of Limewire, Ares or other various p2p applications; most see torrents as a safer practice. So to observe this decline is normal, as most adults I know that download music illegally don't even know what torrents are and have been slower in approaching p2p; and I generally find that the adult generation like to keep what feels more comfortable to them instead of trying the "newest" thing.

The only real way to combat this generation of downloading is to partner with the ISP's because only they can really throttle the connections and stop this. Too many services allow options such as RC4 encryption making it almost virtually impossible for the RIAA and MPAA to attack; and its almost hopeless to attack a handful of millions. Fortunately for the RIAA and MPAA this is almost becoming a reality as this YouTube generation is pushing the envelope.. I use to have bandwidth of ~3.4 mbps, but a general bandwidth of 1 mbps is now more common.

fail (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636897)

The only real way to combat this generation of downloading is to partner with the ISP's because only they can really throttle the connections and stop this.
which would be isps that noone would ever choose.

i personally wouldnt choose no college that would be 'throttling' my activity on the net for whatever reason, and as an adult i would definitely not choose any failed isp that tries to 'throttle' its users for whatever reason.

its free market against mercantilism my friends. spanish have tried it in 16th century, as well as all other nations, it failed. putting a stranglehold on market by forceful or legal means and then selling overpriced goods never succeeds or holds for long. people are the market, its invisible hand. they find a way to adjust the prices.

Re:fail (1)

RSA7474 (1163263) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637103)

I can agree that if one provider was to do this, it would be singled out.. in fact AT&T have been discussing just this option... However, my argument is that with increased bandwidth demands that eventually become greater than the threshold ALL ISP's can provide, then a step would have to be taken.. a huge complaint among most people towards their ISP's is reliability and speed.. both of which are being affected by services such as torrents and video hosting sites like YouTube. If not throttling, then charging more for a connection that can download X amount of data.. -- or preferably, caching data to make it less of a demand pull.. I don't believe we will ever get to a point where internet will be unusable; but as it becomes easier to reach to a wider range of people, and the data sent/received becomes larger.. the demand on each ISP will increase.

Re:As a University Student... (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637239)

The sad thing is, I think the RIAA may be really hurting itself by driving people to torrents. Back when I used Kazaa (some time ago), a download session would be a song or two. While I could try to get large sets of music (IE, an album) completing a set was an extreme amount of work, and frequently impossible. Getting quality encode rates was just as hard too. Which meant I was left with plenty of music to buy, and both I and my brother frequently bought music from bands we also pirated from.

This gives you the 'not much if any loss' model people use to defend* P2P sharing. Thing is, when I cam back, briefly, to the piracy of music, the model had changed, and to get what I wanted the only truly effective means was bittorrent. So despite that I only needed 3 or so songs (I was taking a history of rock class at the time, and the service we were *supposed* to get for listening to the songs the textbook referred to had been shut down), I ended up with the complete works of 3 different bands.

However much I've grown to love the bands in question, there is very very little incentive for me to buy the musuc now. (Except for pretentious use of FLAC, if anybody knows were I can get a decent price on a box set of Velvet Underground, let me know).

*I'm not seeking to defend piracy here, just pointing out that gnutella style P2P is a fairly minor threat to the bottom line. There are lots of other reasons to avoid piracy.

Forrest F, (1)

jrwr00 (1035020) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636061)

Ya, its me.. We found that email kinda off the bat, we thought it was funny as hell, but so are about 70% of those emails

Remember the **AA is controlled by Jews (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21636117)

They exaggerate the number of dead in the Holocaust, so I don't see any surprise when they manipulate numbers for their own benefit.

HEIL HITLER! SIEG HEIL! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21636239)

We are taking back this world from the evil flithy JEWS.

zOMG - Student numbers drop in summer (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21636121)

Shocking! The numbers quoted in the articles show a steep drop in June and July, having reached a peak in midwinter.

What about where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21636411)

I'm not surprised that Mediadefender and the like inflates the numbers they release to the media but I don't think it's the only reason p2p traffic is falling. Most good, and in increasing cases, socially 'in' music simply isn't coming through the industry pipeline. There are many more independant artists and labels putting out high quality music than before. This music is cheap and students have no problems spending money to support such acts instead of just downloading any album they want.

Another meaningless attempt to put a # on Piracy (1)

NothingMore (943591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636521)

Even though i agree with his general overall statement, i would like to know how you could come to any conclusion about what % of piracy is done at college campus's using the data that has been given in his blog entry. 1) The Data that they have given is skewed because of the time period that the data was taken. At least two of the four data points compared in this article are during summer months when most of the people who would be file sharing are gone (not many people stay in the dorms during the summer at most university's). 2) Like he says in the article, NAT/PAT is not taken into account and is used on alot of college campuses. Making that number given in the data completely useless. His article is based on the assumption that numbers of "true" users would only be a "bit higher". An assumption that you cannot come to without knowing how many campuses use NAT/PAT.

Huh? (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636579)

Would someone care to explain the significance of the /. article and the blog linked therein? I initially expected that the quote was from one of the leaked e-mails, but no, it's from some guy I've never heard of doing some very basic and inconclusive analysis of some data he doesn't actually link to.

While I suspect that his suspicions are correct, pretty much anybody could say the same thing and post it to their weblog. Why is it notable in this context? Could someone tell me how the last five minutes of my life weren't wasted by reading this article?

porn... (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 6 years ago | (#21636917)

how much of university P2P traffic is porn? serious question.

Re:porn... (1)

RSA7474 (1163263) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637147)

not much that I know of... most p2p porn is filled with spyware, trojans, etc.. although a lot of my peers computers I fix because of spyware/trojans, are generally because of porn and lack of knowledge of safe browsing.. most students rely on free streaming websites.. such as 4chan.org or timekiller.com safe browsing: Step 1. Do not use Internet Explorer (if forced to, getfoxie.com) Step 2. Get a better browser, such as Firefox. Step 3. Download extensions: noScript and AdBlock. Step 4. If you are on a Windows Environment, use a player like VLC instead of WMP as default. Step 5. Don't download anything, unless you know its safe.

the answer is: hard drives and ipods (3, Interesting)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637193)

People use iPods like hard drives and vice versa. An 80 gig drive costs what - $50 these days? Plenty big for lots of tunes. You bring a drive over to a friend's dorm room and look it over and copy what you want and vice versa. USB2 and / or firewire 800 blow internet connectivity to bits. Why spend hours DLing stuff, especially at school - their routers get saturated and everything slows down anyway. It's faster and easier to find out who has what you want or has interesting tastes and interests, and then just copy from drive to drive.

Silly MAFIAA - trix are for kids!

And the kidz will always be three steps ahead of you. Face it. Your business model is done. Go figure out some other way to make a living.

RS

What most of us are really thinking... (1)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637487)

I want to state that I am for the illegal sharing of files. I am absolutely for it. I just want to make sure that the numbers presented in the media make the copyright assholes look bad. I have a feeling they are manipulated completely to support the corporate case.

You have to wonder... (2, Insightful)

i_liek_turtles (1110703) | more than 6 years ago | (#21637551)

...why the porn industry isn't bitching nearly as much as the MAFIAA when they constitute around 90% of internet piracy.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...