×

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!

Report Says 36.4% of World's Computers Infringe on IP

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the i-would-guess-it's-quite-a-bit-more-actually dept.

The Internet 331

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "According to a new report by Digital Music News, 36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire installed. Given their claim that filling an iPod legally would cost about $40,000, they're pretty sure that most of those computers are infringing upon at least a few imaginary property rights. BitTorrent shouldn't feel left out, though. BitTorrent actually uses more bandwidth, but the article suggests that this is because it is used to share larger files, like movies."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

331 comments

It always amuses me (3, Informative)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832256)

Haven't they heard of NNTP? [wikipedia.org]

Re:It always amuses me (2, Informative)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832308)

Haven't they heard of NNTP?
Yes [slashdot.org].

Re:It always amuses me (5, Informative)

c_g_hills (110430) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832370)

usenet.com [usenet.com] is commonly confused with Usenet [wikipedia.org]. One is a for-profit company; the other is a global, decentralized, distributed Internet discussion system.

Re:It always amuses me (0, Troll)

slack_prad (942084) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832736)

mod parent up! Both are different.

Re:It always amuses me (4, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832796)

Both are different? As opposed to one being different, and the other one not being different? ;-)

Re:It always amuses me (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832826)

Both are different? As opposed to one being different, and the other one not being different?

Don't get all technical here.

Re:It always amuses me (2, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832344)

If this wasn't piracy, it would be straightforward to distribute the entire output of the RIAA via NNTP. The bandwidth consumption would be far smaller, because no file traverses a link more than once. The "p2p" approach is a horribly inefficient way of distributing data.

Re:It always amuses me (3, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832694)

Inefficient as in slower (because most people's uplinks are far slower than their downlinks), then yes. Inefficient as in ammount of data transferred (as you seem to be implying), then I don't see how that can possibly be the case.

In the case of P2P, all transmissions are essentially requests for a part of of a file that a client does not currently have. Now since I'm sending data back out to others then MY OWN bandwidth usage will be much lower, but the internet as a whole won't see much difference.

Now, when you combine in the fact that on Usenet a) some of the older encoding schemes must translate to 7-bit ASCII first and hence increase the size of a file by 30-40%, and b) because of missed posts you often have to download the original + a number of parity files, I don't see Usenet coming ahead on the efficiency side of things.

Re:It always amuses me (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832756)

That's the upside. The down side is that everything gets pushed through every link which means more than 3TB/day. A modern design would be a cached pull system. Say you request part afba76a7b687af6b87fa6b87a6fbaf67 (hash sum), it goes to the local central, which checks local store (basicly a LRU disk cache), if not requests it from regional central, who'll again request it from the national central, who'll keep requesting it up the chain. If none of the caching servers can help, ultimately you connect to the torrent and get it from one of the seeds. Your ISP can cache it on the way out too, so you seed once and the backbone doesn't need to pull it from your seed line more than once. If the cache expires, it can be reseeded again as long as there's peers like with regular torrents. Basicly, no wasteful transfer because there's no traversal without enduser, it only passes once over a link, no expirery as long as someone is seeding. Technically, this is not really difficult it's legally the problem is. With many switching to encrypted torrents this kind of acceleration just isn't possible.

Installed Base (2, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832266)

According to a new report by Digital Music News, 36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire installed.
I have it installed, but I don't use it. I wonder how that figures into their statistics.

Wait a second here (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832268)

that's 36% with LIMEWIRE! There are other P2P software that isn't bittorrent also, is this based on all documented computers and did the limewire software report back home or did users say that they have it installed?

Voluntary systems scans (5, Interesting)

TheLostSamurai (1051736) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832450)

From the report [emediawire.com] linked to in the article, the data was collected when users went to a site (pcpitstop.com) and allowed their computers to be scanned so that the software could find "performance improvements" and make suggestions for their machine. Although I'm sure it was buried in the fine print of the TOS, I wonder how many people realized they were allowing this type of information to be sold to data mining and/or marketing companies.

Re:Voluntary systems scans (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21832558)

So, 36.4% of computers of users who are dumb enough to use a site like that have Limewire installed?

Is this like one of those sites that tells me "YOUR REGISTRY MAY BE CORRUPT!!!"... on a linux box?

Re:Voluntary systems scans (3, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832674)

So in other words, 36.4% of all really dumb people have Limewire installed?

Sounds about right.

Re:Voluntary systems scans (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832862)

Wow... that's some MAJOR selection bias. Most people I know would never run anything like that, and thus we'll never get counted. Since most only go there because they're a) stupid and b) already infected with some crap that slows down their machine, the only meaningful statistic I get from that is that the people that click yes to "free" anything (free screensavers, free porn, free download enhancers, free performance scans) quite a lot also want other free stuff. Shocking, I tell you.

Re:Voluntary systems scans (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832894)

So in other words, 36.4% of computers used by people dumb enough to let an unknown entity scan their hard drives have LimeWire installed.

Funny how I'm not too surprised or shocked. That one in thee computers PERIOD have LimeWire is ludicrous; even Firefox doesn't have that kind of penetration.

I bet it's closer to 100% (5, Insightful)

melted (227442) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832302)

If you count IP infringements made by software vendors. Face it, in the world where One Click patent can even exits, you're _guaranteed_ to infringe on someone's intellectual property if your code is more complicated than "Hello world". And software vendors can't guarantee non-infringement, either, because there are tens of thousands of vaguely worded patents.

Re:I bet it's closer to 100% (2, Funny)

Skynyrd (25155) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832436)


If you count IP infringements made by software vendors. Face it, in the world where One Click patent can even exits, you're _guaranteed_ to infringe on someone's intellectual property if your code is more complicated than "Hello world".


Not true, actually. I patented all uses of the letters in that order.

You owe me $5.

Re:I bet it's closer to 100% (4, Funny)

servognome (738846) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832532)

Face it, in the world where One Click patent can even exits, you're _guaranteed_ to infringe on someone's intellectual property if your code is more complicated than "Hello world".
Infringements:
1. Hello World is a registered trademark of Servognome Corp. Any use or redistribution without the implied oral consent of Servognome is strictly prohibited
2. Patent #45239223 - Display of the words "Hello World" on a digital device

The end of copyright as we know it? (1)

dcobbler (553566) | more than 6 years ago | (#21833024)

I don't pretend to predict the future but when the majority of the citizenry can freely flout a law that they don't understand and don't think is that important and when those who benefit from that law can do very little to enforce or punish almost all of the infringement..... well, the end of that law must be upcoming somewhere in the near future. I've no idea how that law will end, what the last thrashing desperation of the "IP holders" will look like, and what, if anything, will replace (so called) IP. But it's gonna innerestin', for sure.

That's It? (2, Insightful)

cronin1024 (800363) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832316)

It's hard to believe that only 1/3 of computers engage in copyright infringement. Perhaps most of those 2/3 belong to business or education, but I would be hard-pressed to find someone that hasn't borrowed a copy of MS Office or copied a song from a friend.

Re:That's It? (1, Flamebait)

RingDev (879105) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832692)

I buy all my music on CD.
I listen to other peoples' music on Pandora.Com.
I get movies off of the Premium channels on demand service from Charter.
I won copies of Office 2k and 2k3 for my wife and I.
I got vendor copies of VS.Net 2k3, 2k5, and assorted other dev tools from user groups and conferences.
I use 'free' licensed alternatives for much of my other work (Gimp, MySQL, etc...)
At work I insist on valid licensing, which the big wigs usually come through on (although they have been known to buy licenses post hock on occasion).

I'm sure my wife and I are breaking someone's IP, as others have pointed out, there is such a huge volume of IP, it is virtually impossible to not be violating someone's rights.

And heck, I've even used Bit Torrent to pick up Linux distro's before ;)

Not saying we're perfect, but there are a lot of people out there who go about their business as good little consumers that don't purposely violate IP rights. That said, I think current IP laws are a bit out of whack and could use some trimming.

-Rick

Re:That's It? (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832954)

The other 2/3 are still waiting for Vista to boot. Or copy one CD.


(Ducking and running from the inevitable Troll mod points.)

Constitutional Rights? (4, Insightful)

fataugie (89032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832324)

So I guess screw innocent until proven guilty.

Becuase I have bittorrent installed to download Mandrake, I *MUST* have illegal things on my machine?

Screw that report and the assholes who wrote it!

Re:Constitutional Rights? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21832496)

The article is mostly concerned with Limewire, not Bittorrent.

Re:Constitutional Rights? (4, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832538)

Certainly you understand that statistics and expressed opinions have nothing to do with constitutional rights. They're free to make estimates and inferences all they want.

Re:Constitutional Rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21832566)

Becuase I have bittorrent installed to download Mandrake, I *MUST* have illegal things on my machine?
I really don't understand why people use BitTorrent to download ISO images of Linux in the first place. It's MUCH faster for me to download from a web or FTP site and max out my DSL at 650KB/sec than to use BitTorrent and get a trickle of 20KB-30KB/sec on average.

Re:Constitutional Rights? (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832778)

That's on your end. Suppose you're the folks at Canonical and Loquacious Llama just came out. You know that about a million people want your new release. Do you use ftp or bittorrent?

Re:Constitutional Rights? (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832966)

That's easy. I downloaded Gutsy from FTP and uTorrent starting at the same time. FTP was 5% downloaded when the torrent finished.

Re:Constitutional Rights? (1)

jombeewoof (1107009) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832872)

Becuase I have bittorrent installed to download Mandrake, I *MUST* have illegal things on my machine?

I really don't understand why people use BitTorrent to download ISO images of Linux in the first place. It's MUCH faster for me to download from a web or FTP site and max out my DSL at 650KB/sec than to use BitTorrent and get a trickle of 20KB-30KB/sec on average.
Some people download through BT to ease the load on the distro's servers. Downloading through BT only uses a very small download from the server, then all data is gathered from peers.
A direct download of the file, while usually much faster is more expensive for the people hosting the file.
I think it is part of the F/OSS philosophy to give as much as you take, or at least give what you are able to give, in this case you are able to give bandwidth.
Most places where you can download either the torrent or the iso will politely request that you use the torrent.

Of course, I'm American, so I just take take take. Screw em if they can't take a joke.

Re:Constitutional Rights? (4, Interesting)

Entropius (188861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832746)

When I was an undergrad I was downloading some Linux ISO (required for work) and meanwhile playing a game of DotA, a Warcraft 3 mod.

WC3 maintains a direct connection to all the other players in the game -- it uses a P2P network model rather than client-server -- but uses a trivial amount of bandwidth (under 10 KB/sec).

The network admins saw someone with connections open to residential ISP IP addresses and using a lot of bandwidth (ignoring the connection to ftp.mandrake.com or whatever) and call me to tell me that they're killing all my open connections due to P2P download abuse.

WTF?

Re:Constitutional Rights? (1)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832856)

So where does the report say that your BitTorrent use is automatically illegal?

Now, that 36.4% figure of computers with LimeWire installed has been turned into the title of 'Report Says 36.4% of World's Computers Infringe on IP'. Shouldn't you be angry at that instead?

$40,000 iPods? (2, Interesting)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832328)

Or people could rip songs from vinyl, tapes, or CDs that they already own. Or they could have cheap music from online sources that is cheaper than $1/track, like Amie Street [amiestreet.com].

How much would it cost to fill an iPod with songs from used CDs?

Re:$40,000 iPods? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832390)

Not to mention TV Shows, Movies, Pictures, Videos of the family, Podcasts....
Really there is a lot of media that is very cheap and or free that you can use to fill an IPod.

Re:$40,000 iPods? (2, Funny)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832476)

"How much would it cost to fill an iPod with songs from used CDs?"

I think they calculated that figure based on the average content of a computer geek's iPod - namely, exactly 42 million copies of Wilhelmscream.mp3

Re:$40,000 iPods? (3, Informative)

honestmonkey (819408) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832512)

Well it says "iPod" and not what size. I did an estimate with an 80GB size. I came up with ~$17000 to fill it (20000 songs says Apple). I am guessing that most of my CDs have 12 or so songs on them. If you just use the $0.99 a song from iTunes, then it would of course be ~$20000. There is a 160GB version, so I suppose that is the $40000 they are figuring on. But, I've got a bunch of albums I've bought legally for less than $10 an album, so I don't think that it would cost me the full $40K. Worst case scenario I suppose.

Re:$40,000 iPods? (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832590)

I'm fond of video game song remixes myself, for a number of reasons--I've most of my pathetic old 4gb iPod filled with much of the contents of remix.overclocked.org, and the rest filled with things I own reasonably. However, I'd be glad to sell my old iPod to 'em for $40k. I could use an upgrade. And a new car. And a couple classes at the local university. And maybe a nice dinner out. And a new computer....

Re:$40,000 iPods? (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832896)

I've seen a lot of people over the years on Slashdot complain about the size of iPods not being big enough or boasting of filling them. How many people do you know that spend several grand a year on music? How many have amassed a 10,000+ song collection before 21, I've seen people boast of 40,000 or more song collections? I've known a few fanatics that did that or more even back in the 70s but they were rare and now they seem to be commonplace at the same time sales are consistently dropping. I really doubt they are ripping them off LPs and used CDs. Show of hands, how many on Slashdot have a working record player? Now how many have them hooked up to rip music and how many are in the attic gathering dust? I wish everyone would just can all the rationalizing and excuses and just say they don't want to pay for music or movies anymore. I think that's a whole lot closer to the truth than most iPod users have closets full of old LPs. Other than for DJs use just how many LPs of Brittany Spears music were released? I'm not accusing any Slashdot users of listening to her music but I'm making the point that most people under 40 are listening to music produced in the last ten years so it's doubtful they are ripping from LPs. Yes I'm sure there's plenty of Beattles and Rolling Stones in some of their collections but Beattles LPs are actually worth some money and other than digging through their parents closet for a scratched up LP I seriously doubt most these days have access to them. I'd love to see a moritorium on arguments like "sticking it to the man" and "gee I was just borrowing it from a friend next door to see if I wanted to buy it". Most people with 5,000 to 10,000+ songs on their iPods are bulk downloading from torrents. The really ironic thing is most won't even bother to listen to the music they are just downloading it because they can or for bragging rights, I have noticed a few boasting 50,000 to even 200,000 song collections. The real joke is if they have that much music stored they have to have things downloaded they wouldn't be caught dead listening to. I guess an inventive tactic by the recording industry would be to keep track of who downloads what and publish a list of people that have things like Boy George and John Denver. Would some geek be boasting so much about 50,000 song collections if people knew they included the collected works of Tiny Tim?

Re:$40,000 iPods? (1)

plpl (1159995) | more than 6 years ago | (#21833034)

Unfortunately, that would be "ilegal" too. Read an article on /. some time ago in which a sony representative stated so.

36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire insta (4, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832332)

"36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire installed"

That's some damned weak logic, since LimeWire's real reason for existance (and the RIAA's opposition to it) is for independant artists to get their music out.

The RIAA labels have radio and empty-v. Since the RIAA effectively killed "internet radio" P2P is all the indies have.

Now someone please tell me, I heard a song by some indie whose name I don't remember named "scatterbrain". There are literally hundreds of different songs with that name. How can I get a copy of the lagal song I want without ACCIDENTALLY downloading some crap RIAA song with the same name?*

The war against P2P is a war against their competetitors, the independant musicians.

-mcgrew

* Fuck LimeWire, Morpheus has a check box where you don't automatically share downloaded files. The RIAA can go fuck themselves. Hey guess what they are!

Re:36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire in (5, Informative)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832626)

Indie artists can use HTTP (and Torrent if necessary), theres plenty of willing hosts.

The Live Music Archive [archive.org]
The live music archive provides high quality live concerts in a download-able format. The Internet Archive aims preserve and archive as many live concerts as possible for current and future generations to enjoy. All music in this Collection is from trade-friendly artists and is strictly noncommercial, both for access here and for any further distribution.
Jamendo [jamendo.com]
Jamendo offers free access and free download of music tracks, published with Creative Commons licences. On Jamendo, the Artists choose to give access to their music for free to the users. Users are encouraged to donate to artists, and artists earn money from add revenue.
Magnature [magnatune.com]
Listen to complete albums for free. If you like what you hear, download an album for as little as $5 (you pick the price), or buy a real CD, or license our music for commercial use. MP3s & WAVs, and no copy protection (DRM).
FreeIndie.com [freeindie.com]
A smaller selection of independent artists in various genres. Free to download.
IndieFeed [blogs.com]
A free podcast of independent artists from around the world.
CBC Radio 3 [radio3.cbc.ca]
A popular weekly podcast featuring new Canadian rock, pop, hip-hop, singer-songwriters, alt-country and electronica.

Re:36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire in (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832870)

Yes, they can and do. But having your FANS distribute your music adds value to it for the fans themselves.

Thanks for adding those links though, I'm sure a lot of slashdotters don't even know there IS free, legal music.

The war against P2P is a war against *** (1)

Grampaw Willie (631616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832734)

The war against P2P is a war against their competetitors, the independant musicians.


this is a very interesting comment

M/E industry can go after copyright infringers

but it cannot go after a transmission protocol

Re:The war against P2P is a war against *** (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21833014)

but it cannot go after a transmission protocol

It sure has been trying damned hard!

Re:36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire in (2, Interesting)

LithiumX (717017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832798)

The biggest problem with independent artists using services like Limewire for distribution is that they get mixed in with hordes of pirated music.

Also, internet radio is not currently affected in cases where it plays an unsigned artist's material, as royalties only apply to copyrighted tracks. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but the only way royalties hurt IR is that it's harder to get many people to listen to a purely indie station.

I'm sure there are services out there that make it easy to find, sample, and download independent music for free. If they exist, they aren't well known enough (at least not well enough for me to have heard of them and know what they are). The only one I can think of is Myspace, and there are piracy problems there as well.

I fully agree that the RIAA is rightfully threatened by increasingly easy recording, production, and distribution of quality independent music. However, as long as this walks hand in hand with rampant piracy, they will always find it a wise move to suppress it. It's a given that P2P systems that allow sharing of entire libraries, with no restrictions, will inevitably result in heavy piracy (that's human behavior - no matter how much the recording industry complains).

Here's what I think would make for a wildly successful way for artists to distribute their work, easily, cheaply, and without fuss:

An easy to access system, requiring no login, that allows you to freely sample it's entire library of music. Let the artists themselves select their sample clips.

Focus on a combination of samples (since many artists might not want to give it all away) and full tracks (for those who want to gamble on popularity, or are trying to get their name out).

Controlled uploads - ie I can't just start sharing my collection of Pink Floyd (all legal except for my beloved bootlegs). You want it to be easy for an artist to put up their work (and keep the requirements for "artist" as loose as possible), but make it harder for someone to put up material that is not theirs.

Absolute separation from the sale of these tracks - this isn't a requirement, but will help keep the system from eventually degenerating into a profit-driven system.

Checksum system, or other similar method, of identifying a track (and allowing the uploader to retain their rights later, except for the free distribution of what they have already released).

Adoption of any current DRM models, but without utilizing it's restrictive nature - just enough to be supported by DRM-driven software.

A means to keep the servers and bandwidth flowing without requiring a standard business model (ie go for advertising revenue - everyone hates it, but it works better than subscription and praying for donations).

Tie this with a venue system (ie see where the listed artists are playing, and make it easy for them to get a gig, tied heavily to their tracks)

And of course, a good user rating system, to make it easier for truly good work to rise to the forefront, but limited enough to where it's hard for heavy marketing to do anything more than draw attention to something (ie you cannot offer prioritized placement of a track in a rating system - the best you could do is pay for banner ads highlighting the artist)

The key is to make the system as trustworthy as possible (ie any complaints the RIAA has should be spurious, and DRM is used against them in that it marks the tracks as being from a trusted source), and focus on it's main goal (distribution of unsupported artists in a way that is difficult to , and steering clear of the politics of IP). Also, there has to be a means of selling the music, though it might be a good idea for the actual sales to be done from elsewhere (so there is little conflict of interest).

End result, independent artists have an easy way to get their names out, and the RIAA has a target that they can't blame for piracy. This forces the RIAA to either put on a white hat and not interfere with something that is not really their concern, or put on a black hat and openly harass a competitor. The best action for the music industry would be to approach artists who demonstrate the ability to draw an audience. Anything less would be an act of industrial stupidity.

Re:36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire in (1)

radarjd (931774) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832892)

That's some damned weak logic, since LimeWire's real reason for existance (and the RIAA's opposition to it) is for independant artists to get their music out.

Interesting... the original Napster was required to implement filtering software, which far from perfect, did remove a great deal of the major label music while allowing the independent music to remain. Why was it not successful? Why did its usage fall to zero?

If LimeWire's "real reason for existance [sic]" is for "independant [sic] artists to get their music out", how many indie artists have exploded in popularity thanks to LimeWire? What percentage of LimeWire traffic is indie? I'm sure the percentage is non-zero, but if LimeWire's main purpose is to promote indie music, I would say it is a colossal failure.

Nice title slashdot (4, Informative)

moogied (1175879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832354)

Jesus christ, do we have 10 year olds running the headlines now?

Your Rights Online: Report Says 36.4% of World's Computers Infringe on IP

...uh no it doesn't. It says 36.4 use limewire. It does not then say "100% of limewire usage infringes on IP."

Re:Nice title slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21832546)

The 10 year olds writing the headlines make more sense than the 8 year olds are writing the articles:

Given their claim that filling an iPod legally would cost about $40,000, they're pretty sure that most of those computers are infringing upon at least a few imaginary property rights.
Maybe they're claiming that 36.4% of the computers in the world are also hooked up to brand new 160 gb iPods full of copyright-infringing songs?

TiVoToGo (1)

mark0 (750639) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832366)

TiVoToGo can easily fill a video iPod with perfectly legal recordings transfered from a TiVo for no additional cost beyond the TiVo setup and a copy of the TiVo Desktop Plus package. You can save a little money by not buying the Plus package if you already have software that can do the transcoding for you. Podcasts, etc, can cost nothing, as well...

It's not a foregone conclusion (2, Interesting)

aldousd666 (640240) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832398)

That's probably more people than have floppy drives. I personally don't even know what limewire looks like, but I do have bittorrent installed and have only used it for downloading linux distro ISO's. I don't know about you, but I'd rather put useful data on my hard drive than crappy media files that waste the space on my drive. I have some mp3's, about 3 gigs of it, ripped from my entire CD collection and stuff I burnt to a disc and then ripped from iTunes, but I can attest that I don't even think of looking at bittorrent sites or limewire, eMule, or whatever, when I want something new. Anyway I used to have the old school Napster before it was abolished, but that was the end of my IP stealing days...and I haven't even a single one of those media files, because that host died long ago. Just about when I decided to make a living by producing and selling some of my own IP, I stopped deciding that I should look for ways to steal other people's. It is possible you know not to steal shit just because you can.

Re:It's not a foregone conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21832686)

Take your warped view of stealing and shove it right up your ass. It's not theft, no manner how many times people want to say that it is. The fact that you help perpetuate this bullshit, makes me wonder if you're not "one of them."

In short, go fuck yourself.

Re:It's not a foregone conclusion (1)

sherpajohn (113531) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832882)

I am pretty much the same, I have uTorrent for Open Office, updates to LOTRO, etc - not for grabbing the pap-du-jour. But I have a bit more music on my HDD, like well over 100gb now. As soon as I get a new CD (usually from psyshop.com) I rip it as wav and if I want it on my iPod convert it to ACC.

Back in the days I had napster, used it to find old 80's stuff (12" mixes") you cannot buy anymore.

Frankly I would rather pay good money for what I consider great independent music than listen to/buy/"pirate" the crap that pop music is today.

bovine excrement (1)

mytrip (940886) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832400)

34% of the world's computers have limewire? I think they have inflated this quite a bit. 1 or 2 percent maybe.

Re:bovine excrement (3, Insightful)

TheLostSamurai (1051736) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832550)

I have just scanned all of the computers on my corporate network. I have concluded that 0% of the computers in my office (out of 300) have LimeWire installed. I am therefore claiming that 0% of the WORLD'S computers have LimeWire installed based on my sample group. /sarcasm

I believe this is a valid comparison as the data in question was collected when users submitted to voluntary PC scans by visiting a specific website that 99% of the worlds computer users have never heard of.

Re:bovine excrement (1)

Fallen Seraph4 (1186821) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832984)

Indeed. They conveniently forgot to note that the actual sample set is "People who use the internet from home and have far too much time on their hands", as opposed to "all the computers in the world". If you can't notice that distinction, then you probably don't deserve your job. Although, it's not as if they don't have a vested interest in making wildly inaccurate claims...

ip is a valid concept (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832412)

somehow, there must be a tension of powers between shared public wealth, and private corporate wealth. there is no such mechanism to legally reflect this tension in the current world. and so all we have is the the ever increasing encroachment of corporate ownership into what should naturally be public spheres of public ownership. and so none of corporate ownership can be respected. naturally, some of it should, but not the overextended monstrosity that the corporations currently expect

and it is not up to the corporations to restrain themselves. it is their job to squeeze money out of every possible nook and cranny. that is what corporations do, that is their nature, it is not their nature. we should not expect them to restrain themselves. it is our job to restrain them, so they do not become cancerous growths. and we, the legal world and our legal frameworks, are not currently doing that. so we must begin doing that then, so that some of private ownership is respected, not none of it, as currently is the case, because current private ownership laws overreach in time and in venue

as if these means somebody won't still make money, and good money! it is just that the old models won't work anymore, and the corporations are nervous about the unknown

in the current world, the legions of lawyers representing the corporations, and the congressmen they buy (sonny bono, et al) push the scales firmly in the direction of irrational monetization. in a world where i cannot play "happy birthday" without paying someone, something is seriously broken

it is not that we shouldn't respect morality. it is that we shouldn't respect a legal system that is seriously broken, and doesn't reflect morality. current ip law is nothing more than an overextended farce

40000 songs = $40,000 sounds right to me (1)

samuel4242 (630369) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832424)

The math isn't very hard. It may not be an answer you want to hear, but it seems like a legit estimate to me.

Now, it's true that there are plenty of great bands that distribute their music for free. But given that the going rate is $.99/song and given that most of the most commercial bands want to make money and given that people seem to like the more commercial bands, I think it's a fair estimate.

Still, if I were making the estimate I would do something like say, "Assuming that people only devote half of their iPod to commercial music, it would cost $20,000 to fill it legally."

Re:40000 songs = $40,000 sounds right to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21832666)

Not all audio is music, and not all storage is audio.

To the first, the term is "pod"-cast for a reason. These are legal, typically free, and can be quite lengthy.
To the second, I don't think I know anyone with an iPod who doesn't, at times, use it as an external hard-drive.

Re:40000 songs = $40,000 sounds right to me (4, Insightful)

LMacG (118321) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832722)

You are assuming that all of those songs need to be purchased at $1 apiece. What about the CDs I already have at home? I know that Sony lawyer said that ripping even one song is OMG theft, but I don't live on her world. What about all the stuff I downloaded from eMusic when I belonged? There was a cost, but not anything close to $1/song.

Re:40000 songs = $40,000 sounds right to me (1)

highvista63 (587404) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832962)

I've been on a CD buying binge lately--getting some of the great music I've heard by streaming Radio Paradise. I've been buying mostly used and from discount on-line vendors and seldom pay more than $6.99 for a CD. So, I'm getting music for a lot less than $0.99/song. It's just a matter of shopping around and going for slightly older titles.

The Report Continues... (5, Funny)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832438)

31.2% of computers infringe TCP.
22.9% infringe UDP.

The report doesn't mention other protocols, but as IPv6 gains ground, we're all sure to see lots more infringement.

That low? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832460)

How is it possible that the number is that low? I would guess that even the computers of IP lawyers infringe on some IP.

Almost all computers use IP (5, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832474)

Since the concept of intellectual property [wikipedia.org] is almost completely meaningless, the title must be about Internet Protocol [wikipedia.org], and I bet close to 99% of the worlds computers have IP, and most use it every day.

Oh, you mean that 36.4% of the computers have tools installed that facilitate copyright infringement?

Can we please stop using the term "IP" or "Intellectual Property" and actually specify what we are talking about, which in this case is copyright infringement? Especially since the source articles never use either of those two term in them?

It would be very hard to infringe on trademarks using limewire or bittorrent in any way, and the same goes for patents unless the patents cover the implementation of the software.

Submitter here - I didn't do it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21832810)

I did not put the acronym "IP" in the title. As you can see from the firehose link, it was added.

For those complaining that it doesn't say that they're used for infringement, that's why the original title had a question mark at the end. I know that some hate that practice, but that really was the question the report was asking rhetorically. Yes, that makes the title more provocative, but that provocation was intended in the original report.

Just look who sponsored that report to see what I mean. It is being used by those who sponsored it to say, or at least imply, that at least a third of the world's computers are used by copyright infringers.

I tend to agree with those saying it underestimates that, though. Politicians would be wise to tread lightly, because I doubt that one third of voters (assuming the infringement is evenly distributed) are going to like being told they're evil criminals who deserve huge fines and jail time.

$40k? Why do I doubt that? (2, Informative)

meatmanek (1062562) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832522)

My iPod has 3489 songs on it, that's 19.49 gigs, which means about 5.5 megs per song. Until they come out with a 250 gig iPod, I disagree that it would cost $40,000 to fill one.

Re:$40k? Why do I doubt that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21833018)

I know for a fact it doesn't. I ripped my CD collection and have over 55 gigs of mp3s (about 14k songs) and I know for a fact it didn't cost me anywhere near 40k - there's about 1600 folders (1 folder per cd) - I don't know what they pay for CDS, but an average of $12 a CD - that comes in under 20k. Take singles, sales, specials (I just picked up 8 CDs for $50 the other day), etc. and it probably knocks off a few thousand more.

Only a fool would pay $16/$20 a CD at some outdated (and probably now out of business) CD store of the past. But even at $20 a CD, your cost is $32,000 - well under $40k to fill up a 60 gig iPod.

one 9.99 movie used 1/2 of my iPod (1)

wardk (3037) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832576)

4GB iPod, bought one movie from iTunes for 9.99

used just over 2GB of space

so I buy another movie and I have filled my iPod for 20 bucks, LEGALLY

what a bunch of lying SOBs these music/movie labels are.

$40,000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21832586)

Given their claim that filling an iPod legally would cost about $40,000
Let's examine that claim. I can buy a used DVD from NetFlix for $5.99. I can get them cheaper locally, and still legally, but that number will do. The $40,000 number divided by $5.99 means I could buy 6677 DVDs for that amount of money. If you divide the 160GB maximum capacity for an iPod by that number, that would mean that the compressed size for each movie would average 23 MB.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, a 320x240 DVD rip will take up about 500MB. That's 320 per 160 GB iPod. 320 times $5.99 is a bit over $1900. That's 20 times less than the number quoted in the article and still 100% legal. And that's the iPod with the highest storage capacity. For the non-classic models that dollar amount starts to fall pretty quickly.

More Prisons! (1)

7bit (1031746) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832610)

36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire
.
Well, looks like we need to start building a LOT more prisons to house these criminals! Oh, and don't put a library in them, it would only encourage anti-copyright recidivism...

Seriously though, Limewire still exists?

This will be ONE interesting year... (1)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832612)

...Especially since the law (in EU-Countries) now require the ISP to keep all data-traffic logged for up to 1 year minimum, some countries 2 - year minimum. Gawd - I cant even imagine the harddisk space for that, but yes - 2008 will therefor be a very interesting year. Who do ya trust?

Moral equivalence question (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832614)

I went to a movie theatre this weekend and an interesting thought occured to me: Would people who download copyrighted works feel guilty about sneaking into a theatre to watch a movie? You're not physically taking anything, and the cost to project the movie would cost the theatre the same regardless of whether you were there or not.

Re:Moral equivalence question (1)

hemorex (1013427) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832730)

Morally equivalent, perhaps, but a higher apparent chance of being caught. Not sure this is a fair comparison.

Copyright law is real (1)

Grampaw Willie (631616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832620)

you can write as much as you want about "imaginary property"

it won't help: Copyright law is for real

Right now we have a gang of scam artists trying to erase that law by means of repeated and flagrant violations.

The Music and Entertainment Industry will not give up their bread and butter without a counter-attack. and when that counter attack comes M/E Industry will have the law and the Court on their side. those involved in our current ILLEGAL copyright infringement rackets will most likely find themselves facing some extreemly serious penalties.

Common sense (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832624)

Don't forget that most of the major ISP's will pipe your traffic to big brother. If an agent or proxy working for the *AA/DOJ makes available a file which you shouldn't download, and you download it from them, then you will be flagged. Fortunately, there will be an election in the US very soon - hint, hint.

Nice choice of words (1, Troll)

gordgekko (574109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832682)

"[I]maginary property rights"? Wow, I guess in addition to being bad editors, Slashdot's paid staff also don't know the current state of the law.

I don't care whether you agree or disagree with those laws, the current state of the law makes a mockery of any argument that IP rights are "imaginery." Score another one for Slashdot as propaganda tool.

Re:Nice choice of words (1)

d34thm0nk3y (653414) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832936)

I don't care whether you agree or disagree with those laws, the current state of the law makes a mockery of any argument that IP rights are "imaginery." Score another one for Slashdot as propaganda tool.

So you are saying that a unique string of words (for example) is physical property?

Re:Nice choice of words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21832952)

"IP" is not defined in law. There are copyrights, trademarks, and patents. Casually, these are referred to collectively as "intellectual property". Legally, these must be referred to individually, since they are all handled differently. That leaves the acronym "IP" to stand for something else... like "imaginary property".

Imaginary property? (1)

crankyspice (63953) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832704)

Nice to know there's no bias... (I know, I know, with a 5-digit UID I should know better.) Guys, intellectual property is real, there's a body of law defining it going back almost three full centuries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne [wikipedia.org]). Intellectual property is what powers the GNU licenses, etc. Intellectual property represents ~5% of the GDP of the United States (think our economy is in poor shape at the moment? Cut out IP related commerce and see where we're at -- if you still have a job and a home).

Re:Imaginary property? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832840)

Yep GNU/FSF use the very same laws as the RIAA and MPAA but let's not ruin a good rant with truth and logic.

$40,000? I believe it. (1)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832822)

filling an iPod legally would cost about $40,000

What they don't tell you is that the $40K is spent in bandwidth, CPU and quaaludes while you wait for iTunes to download "missing album artwork" for 160 GB worth of mixed and independent music (for which there is no artwork to download). God only knows how much you spend waiting for it to scan your files for gap-less playback...

No screaming about Gnutellanet? (1)

Essron (231281) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832832)

i find it easier to believe this article refers to installed gnutella clients, not specifically limewire. i cant be alone in thinking limewire is horrible software and that the 3rd party alternative of the week is generally superior.

and why isn't there a cadre of slashdotters screeching against limewire as bloat/spy/lameware? or preening about how they wrote a gnutella client in 9 lines that runs on their dreamcast? my how times have changed.

IP = Imaginary Property Huh? (1)

Oink (33510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832844)

Unbiased news reporting at its finest. Regardless of how the editors may feel about the legitimacy of intellectual property, commentary like that is without class. I'm embarassed for you, honestly.

No credit where no credit is due? (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#21832876)

From TFA:

LimeWire happens to be 100 percent compatible with the most popular media player on the planet.
Uh, as is pretty much ANY bittorrent client, or things like Acquisition, BearShare(still around?). Don't credit LimeWire for doing something that they all do, and don't try to imply that iPods are some sort of magical closed music box. Plus, since Limewire and the likes can host ANY computer file, I would suggest that the content of any given Limewire connection is no where near 100% compatible with an iPod. Or at least I haven't figured out how to play .wmv natively (codec of choice for porn) and it's not like there is any shortage of Word and PDF documents out there in bittorrent land either. Those pesky .exe's don't seem to work either.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...