Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

ISP Block on Pirate Bay Not Having Desired Effect

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the never-underestimate-the-pirates dept.

The Internet 177

TechDirt is reporting that the recent block placed on The Pirate Bay torrent site is not only relatively ineffective, but actually driving more traffic to the site because of the attention. "The news from The Pirate Bay appears to confirm this suspicion. According to The Pirate Bay's new Court Blog, Danish traffic has not dropped since the implementation of the block. '...the number of visits from Denmark has increased by 12% thanks to IFPI,' the blog post reads. 'Our site http://thejesperbay.org is growing more because of the media attention than people actually coming to learn how to bypass the filter - our guess is that alot of the users on the site now run OpenDNS instead of the censoring DNS at Tele2.dk.' 'We also started tracking some stats before and after the block. There's no noticeable difference between the number of users from Tele2.dk before and after.'"

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

Oblig. Quote: (5, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381160)

"The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it."

-- John Gilmore

Re:Oblig. Quote: (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381248)

YAARRRRR!!! Ye be right, Matey! It be Gasparilla here in Tampa, and thar be pirates! Ye shall not censor us, ye Landubbers! Now walk the plank! YAAAARRRRR!!!!!

Re:Oblig. Quote: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381454)

It's good to see fellow pastafarians...

I was getting worried that we died out.

Truth, ignorance, and condoms. (5, Insightful)

erick99 (743982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381300)

That is absolutely true but most folks in government (worldwide) don't seem to get that. It's as if the people who typically go after Internet issues haven't spent much time using it outside of checking the weather and ordering condoms (size extra small) from Amazon.

Re:Truth, ignorance, and condoms. (2, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381884)

Condoms from Amazon? Are they like, really really BIG condoms for warrior women?

Re:Truth, ignorance, and condoms. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382244)

I use extra small condoms, you insensitive clod!

Re:Oblig. Quote: (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381418)

"The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it."

And the Net also has another interesting trait. It seems operate with a variation of Netwon's 3rd law. For every action there is an opposite + magnified reaction.

Re:Oblig. Quote: (5, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381880)

And the Net also has another interesting trait. It seems operate with a variation of Netwon's 3rd law. For every action there is an opposite + magnified reaction.

This has more to do with human behaviour and predates "the Net".
Banning (or attempting to ban) just about anything is actually a very good way of advertising something. People who would otherwise never have heard about the whatever wanting to find out what all the fuss is about.

Re:Oblig. Quote: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381462)

New quote: "The Net treats piracy as a feature and routes to it."

ObResponse: (4, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382058)

"The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it."

-- John Gilmore
"But what if censorship is in the router?"

  -- Seth Finkelstein

Re:ObResponse: (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382214)

That one has been solved since 30,000BC. That a big pointy rock and drop it on the piece of plastic. Remember CD drives that didn't let you rip CDs?

No (2, Funny)

Canar (46407) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382602)

I don't remember CD drives like that at all.

QED?

This is exactly... (4, Insightful)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381188)

...what everyone thought, I suppose. I'm wondering: did any of the legislators consult a single tech guy? I don't agree with filtering, but this is just embarrassing.

Re:This is exactly... (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381206)

No. Because tech guys work for the "other side"

Re:This is exactly... (5, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381232)

Unfortunately, they probably did. I know several well paid network engineers and sysadmins who really have no understanding of how the internet works, and would think a local ISP DNS block would work. The typical training for these positions is heavy on the "how", and light on the "why".

They know very well this doesn't work (5, Insightful)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381608)

The tele2 tech guys I know are quite competent. It is just that it is not in their, not in their employers, interest to implement an effective filter. So they do the absolutely minimal amount of work they have to do, in order to comply with this "small claims" court order.

Re:They know very well this doesn't work (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382530)

Have they actually implement anything?

They have told the IFPI to go ahead and try it in a real court with backing from TDC et. al. so I think Tele2 can in fact ignore the ruling from Fogedretten (and face charges should they lose).

Re:This is exactly... (4, Insightful)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382228)

Unfortunately, they probably did. I know several well paid network engineers and sysadmins who really have no understanding of how the internet works, and would think a local ISP DNS block would work. The typical training for these positions is heavy on the "how", and light on the "why".


More realistically, they know exactly why it isn't working and aren't trying very hard to implement it. It's called "paying lip-service". A DNS block does work fine, as long as your users don't want to, or don't try to circumvent it. Case in point, I'm using DNS block on my home/small business network to block out adservers, using the list from http://pgl.yoyo.org/as/ [yoyo.org] . Works great, because nobody on the network has any interest at all in circumventing it. If I were blocking something like Google, the users would riot. And they'd switch to a different DNS server.

Most people in the kind of position where they'd be able to implement a DNS block know that the only way to enforce it would be to block DNS traffic at the routers... or to silently redirect DNS traffic to the ISP's DNS server, something that's ridiculously easy to do with most routers/gateways/firewalls.

Its not technical ignorance, its cultural (4, Insightful)

deft (253558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382986)

The vast majority of people on the net probably have little knowledge of how to bypass the block, and would be helpless to do anything. It may be correct.

The component they seem to miss is the resolve of those people that know how to do it to not only adapt their system to access anything they want, but to then make the fix for it easily accessible to the masses. They are willing to write scripts, make interfaces, patches, websites, directions, etc so that anyone can do it.

Thats the component they miss, and it is not a technical lack of understanding, but a cultural one.

Re:This is exactly... (5, Insightful)

xappax (876447) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381360)

Perhaps the ISP itself does not agree with the spirit of the censorship, and are merely going through the motions to satisfy the court and cover their asses. Basically, maybe they don't care whether people get around the block.

Re:This is exactly... (2, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382216)

As far as I've seen, DNS blocks are pretty standard for this type of blocking in 'the free world'.

Basically, maybe they don't care whether people get around the block.

Well, if the assholes at IFPI cant access the site anymore, maybe they'll stop complaining. And, hey, it's a best effort deal, most other possible blocking methods would risk catching even more innocent and entirely unrelated sites, without being much harder to bypass.

Re:This is exactly... (2, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382646)

Agreed. Of course Tele2 wish to keep their subscribing pirates.

That was a rhetorical question, right? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381510)

did any of the legislators consult a single tech guy?

Of course they did, because married tech guys are just too hard to find.

Re:That was a rhetorical question, right? (2, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381992)

Why, I have a wife at my house [slashdot.org] . She's not mine of course but she's there... if you follow that link you will see the phrase "unfuckable nerd" more than once.

Don't bother with the link, it isn't worth it. Really. Nothing there but whores, alcoholics, an alien and and a needle junkie. Nothing you're not dealing with every day, ya know?

-mcgrew

(-1 offtopic, except for the comment it is responding to. Is your head about to asplode, mr. mod?)

Re:That was a rhetorical question, right? (2, Funny)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382610)

On the contrary, we're easy to find, because we're not allowed to go anywhere.

Re:This is exactly... (2, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382182)

...what everyone thought, I suppose. I'm wondering: did any of the legislators consult a single tech guy? I don't agree with filtering, but this is just embarrassing.

I'm certain they did. And they kept consulting with single tech guys, until they found one that would tell them what they wanted to hear.

And seriously, if you were a tech guy, what would you do, actually put forth a herculean effort to attempt to violate the very policies that make up the internet so some twit politicians can block a PERFECTLY LEGAL WEBSITE, a block which would be bypassed almost instantly, or set up a token effort that gets you a nice paycheck and lets everyone save face? They both pay the same, both are just as effective, why not go the easy route?

OpenDNS (4, Interesting)

kextyn (961845) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381200)

Why is anyone still using the DNS info provided by their ISP? I have been happy with OpenDNS for quite a while now. A lot of people may not think about what DNS server they're using untill something like this happens. My old ISP (Cox) is what made me use OpenDNS. They started blocking access to some certain questionable sites (relating to cracking programs.) They had good reason to though because the site was full of popups which always make my anti-virus go crazy. But since I use Opera I didn't see any of them unless I wanted to.

Re:OpenDNS (4, Informative)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381258)

You are asking the wrong question.

The right question is: Why an ISP claiming to censor and filter is not transparently proxying DNS?

It is the easiest protocol to abuse. A single line NAT entry can do the trick. 99.9% of access equipment out there is capable of doing that. Just add it to the default user profile along with the mandatory web proxy/cache and other similar lines.

Re:OpenDNS (2, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381484)

is not transparently proxying DNS?

That would be very easy to do but it would also be very easy to get around.

I grew tired of Roadrunner's DNS re-direction for failed domains and started running my own DNS server. I configured it use the DNS server at work as a forwarder. It would be a small matter to go one more step and configure an encrypted VPN between my house and the office if my ISP started intercepting my DNS queries and redirecting them to their server.

How long before OpenDNS or equivalent services offer a VPN'ed/encrypted method of getting to their DNS servers? Then all your ISP is going to see is a bunch of connections to IP addresses with no underlying DNS queries.

Trying to block anything using DNS is a complete waste of time unless you intend to whitelist all of your customers traffic and deny anything not in the "approved" list.

Re:OpenDNS (1)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381712)

> unless you intend to whitelist all of
> your customers traffic and deny anything
> not in the "approved" list.

Wanna bet it'll be the next step?

Re:OpenDNS (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381838)

Wanna bet it'll be the next step?

I find it highly unlikely.

Re:OpenDNS (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382460)

It is already the next step with the minor difference that approved is QoS-ed into specific class while non-approved goes into the junk category to fight for its 64K with P2P and other bottom feeders. Quite a few ISPs are doing that. A jolly good use for Ellacoya, PCube and other DPI gear.

Re:OpenDNS (4, Interesting)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381742)

How long before OpenDNS or equivalent services offer a VPN'ed/encrypted method of getting to their DNS servers? Then all your ISP is going to see is a bunch of connections to IP addresses with no underlying DNS queries.

Interesting question. Here's another one, following the path you suggested:

How long before RIAA/MPAA attempts to have said OpenDNS encrypted DNS query service shut down, on the grounds that it facilitates piracy?

Re:OpenDNS (3, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381820)

How long before RIAA/MPAA attempts to have said OpenDNS encrypted DNS query service shut down, on the grounds that it facilitates piracy?

Well, I could come back with arguments like "It wouldn't stop piracy, you can do this yourself without OpenDNS", "they'd have no legal basis for that", but such realistic assessments of the situation have never stopped them before.

I guess the best we could hope for is that enough people would become angry enough to donate money to a legal defense fund for OpenDNS. In any case, as long as they are the ones responding to us and not the other way around it's only a matter of time before we win.

Nothing worth doing or fighting for is ever easy.

Re:OpenDNS (1)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 6 years ago | (#22383024)

Easy for you, maybe. Easy for the average user? Hell no.

Changing the DNS numbers in your TCP/IP stack is really easy to do. Just open the settings, and poof, it's there. Setting up a VPN to a corporate network requires: a job which allows you to VPN into the network, that your corporate network has a DNS server on a different ISP, a fair degree of knowhow to set up the VPN on your system, and an ISP that doesn't deprioritize encrypted traffic. It's something that's a lot more technical to do, and has a lot more ifs involved.

Setting it up to transparently proxy the DNS is something that's ridiculously easy to do. More than that, it'd probably cut out more than 90% of the pirate traffic. Sure, it's not 100%. Blocking out 100% is nearly impossible with the way the 'net is designed. But 90% is better than zero.

Re:OpenDNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381490)

This is because the techies working for the ISP know blocking the pirate bay is stupid and evil pandering to the pro-copyright infofascists, so they did absolute the minimum necessary to satisfy the letter of the order. Work-to-rule is a popular form of protest in europe - "Okay then, I'll do EXACTLY what you asked, to the letter."

Re:OpenDNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22383010)

'the pro copyright infofascists'

Jesus get a fucking clue. People who work hard to create stuff and want to be paid for their work aren't 'fascists', and frankly its juvenile drivel like that that makes anyone who produces content that can be encoded digitally these days, seriously consider just getting a new career.
I'm an entertainment software developer, but am seriously considering changing careers to get a job in marketing. there is literally zero future in making entertainment software any more if dickheads like you have your way.

Re:OpenDNS (1)

idiot900 (166952) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381500)

Here's my theory: the techs there aren't against TPB and they know they can do a crappy job of blocking but still look like they were following orders. Everyone wins (except those who can't figure out how to use OpenDNS).

Re:OpenDNS (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381542)

Because they have no desire to comply except to avoid legal liability? They know, as does everyone else, that legal or illegal TPB is part of what gives a broadband connection value. They were instructed by the court to block TPBs DNS entry, and they did. They took more than enough bad press for complying with a court order (like they had a choice), why should they do anything that really could be construed to run the IFPIs errands? As long as they don't get on the wrong side of the law, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by being on their customers' side.

Re:OpenDNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381672)

But that too is the wrong question.

Secure alternatives to the existing DNS system are weeks away at most, worst possible case is a browser extension to query over HTTPS. ISP tele2 see how stupid this 'block' is and are appealing it, why then would they unnecessarily interfere with customers DNS traffic by proxying it?

Re:OpenDNS (4, Informative)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381392)

Why is anyone still using the DNS info provided by their ISP? I have been happy with OpenDNS for quite a while now.

I don't use (only) OpenDNS because I don't like being tracked and their search page that pops up when you type a wrong address. I run my own caching name server (dnsmasq) that draws from a pool of DNS servers (OpenDNS too) and I get rid of their stupid search page with

bogus-nxdomain=208.69.32.131
bogus-nxdomain=208.69.32.130
This is much faster than using a name server that is not in your intranet and has the advantage that I can give names to all machines in my lan (laptop, xbox, mediacenter, mobile phone...), and if one nameserver goes down or blocks something, there are others in my pool.

Re:OpenDNS (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381896)

I run my own caching name server (dnsmasq) that draws from a pool of DNS servers (OpenDNS too)

Why not just use the root servers and run a fully recursive nameserver of your own instead of relying on a list of forwarders that may or may not have an agenda?

The only reason my nameserver (BIND) at home isn't fully recursive is because I have full control over a fully recursive server (at the office) that I can use as a forwarder. If I didn't have that then my server at home would be doing all the legwork for me.

Re:OpenDNS (1)

davidu (18) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382750)

Maybe he likes our domain filtering and other features... ?

He would be better of just emailing us and working with support to get NXDomain responses handed back directly.

-davidu

Re:OpenDNS (3, Insightful)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381396)

Because some of us don't trust OpenDNS's DNS filtering to think for us, and prefer to have unmoderated DNS results. Not to mention, my ISP's DNS resolving is considerably faster than OpenDNS's.

Why is anyone still using the DNS info provided by their ISP? I have been happy with OpenDNS for quite a while now.

Re:OpenDNS (1)

kextyn (961845) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381966)

I didn't say everyone should use OpenDNS. I just asked why anyone would still be using the DNS from their ISP. If you have a better solution that's great. For myself I don't need anything beyond OpenDNS. I know it works and I don't have to have my own DNS server running. If you have any good alternatives to OpenDNS which you do trust, please share.

Re:OpenDNS (2, Funny)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381570)

Thanks for the tip! Open dns works perfectly.

Now do you know how to get around a damn ISP port 25 block when my domain email host won't offer a different port?

Re:OpenDNS (1)

erpbridge (64037) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382032)

If its as simple as incoming port 25 open, outgoing port 25 blocked: NOIP has a service... outbound SMTP reflector. I think its $19/year, and has limit of 100 outgoing messages. Set your mailserver to send to them on a different port, then they reflect that out on port 25 of their own.

OT - your sig (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382086)

Don't insult [wikipedia.org] Stallman like that. A whore I know [slashdot.org] jumped my shit when I referred to myself as a "computer nerd". Are you by chance a five foot seven inch tall seventy five pound woman with a big head and a flatter chest than most men?

Re:OT - your sig (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382524)

HAHAHA, umm nope. I got into an arguement one night with a "Nerd on site". He wanted me to go work for him. I told him that I thought that nerd was derogatory and there was no way in hell I was selling my PT Cruiser to buy a Volkwagen beetle and to be called a nerd.

Off to wikipedia we went. When I searched nerd... it showed a photo of Urkel and when I searched geek, it showed Stallman. He was not happy. hehe

I just went back and the page has been considerably changed now.

Miss Streisand (2)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381226)

We're seeing your effect and we're kind of glad. It's like the shinny red button that says "DO NOT PRESS!" people want to press it more now, than ever.

Also, bittorrent is the only thing I know to get better with the Streisand and Slashdot effects...

You Know. (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381260)

I hate it when non tech people underestimate us... hokay, time to teach them a lesson... oh wait, Piratebay is already doing that...

More of the story.. (1)

rdradar (1110795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381262)

http://www.torrentcentral.net/news/The%2BPirate%2BBay%2Band%2BFilesharers%2BBacked%2Bby%2BSwedish%2BPoliticians [torrentcentral.net] But I guess isp played some part on this, enabling such an easy way around it :) Even banning their ip's would have had more effect.

Re:More of the story.. (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381612)

Even banning their ip's would have had more effect.

And that's probably the next thing the Swedish courts are going to order the Swedish ISPs to do.

On a sumewhat related note- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381284)

publicity over the shutdown of something called demonoid led me to discover the wonders of .cbr files

a question (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381296)

non-english speaking cultural output is a lot smaller than english language output. not only because its large, but english language output tends to penetrate non-english speaking countries, not the other way around

therefore, when say, germans abandon the financial support for german cultural output, this should have a more devastating effect on financing german cultural output than when english language fans pirate music or movies

and since piracy is hugely prevalent in europe, i wonder what the epxerience has been for danish movie, czech music, etc.

incidentally, i think that the financial support for all culture via traditional means SHOULD collapse. it isn't viable anymore with the internet. new channels of financial support will emerge (concerts, advertising, etc.), but i think they will be permanently reduced funds. not that this is a big problem:

1. no more need for a middle man who presses lps and cds and tapes
2. the cost of production, sutdios, cameras, etc.: shrinking dramatically every day in the digital era. to make an album nowadays, all you need is a laptop
3. people are motivated to do art for the sake of art. if you were guaranteed to make $0 from making a song or a movie, people would still make songs and movies. it's called love of art, not love of money. money is an artificial injection into the creation of art

Eh, wha? (4, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381446)

You must be an american. The number of movies produced in the rest of the world is GREATER then the number of movies produced in the US, or even if you start calling every country that has english as a main language being clubbed together (wonder how the french part of canada feels about it).

This is only logical, while english is a very common language and a great many people speak it as their second, third language, it is not the most common language.

In europe, most tv-stations, even the commercial ones are man-dated by law to provide a certain amount of "native" broadcasting. That is why the station RTL4 which was clearly aimed at dutch audience spend money on a luxemburg program block in the early hours to satisfy the law (they were based there using a loophole).

Childerens tv in holland has had a strong EU only feel to it in my youth, simply because US programs did not meet EU regs against advertising to childeren.

As for how it is affected, it is not even clear yet how copyright infringement affects hollywood, how it affects local cinema in the rest of the world is anyones guess. We certainly are not going to get the truth about it from the media, they after all have a rather direct intrest in the matter.

So far however it seems to matter little, Remember non-hollywood movies tend not to pay quit as much to their stars. This matters a lot, to pay those idiotic salaries a Tom Hanks gets you need to make massive profits. Pay them a more modest wage and you have a lot more room.

Also what you claim about english content being more easily accepted in the rest of the world helps. I can far more easily find a seeded torrent of a US show then say a belgium program even if said program in the country itself is more popular.

Re:Eh, wha? (2, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381926)

I think the advantage English has is that we, for the most part, don't care how badly you mangle it.

If you want to speak with an accent, go for it.

Messy writing? Spelling mistakes? No problem.

Confuse you're apostrophe's? Irritating, but still readable. (It took me about a minute to write that first sentence.)

26 characters and you're good to go. You can express any damn sentiment you want.

Compare that to, say, Cantonese, where you have to worry about intonation, angles, way more characters, &etc. Even french speakers get upset when you put the emphasis on the wrong syllables. But English, man, any semi-coherent motherfucker with a keyboard, pencil, pen, paper, dirt path, or whatever can be understood by any motherfucker unfortunate enough to read the gibberish.

Re:Eh, wha? (1)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382804)

But English, man, any semi-coherent motherfucker with a keyboard, pencil, pen, paper, dirt path, or whatever can be understood by any motherfucker unfortunate enough to read the gibberish.

Hey, you're right! I understood you perfectly!

you're rather odd (3, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381934)

"You must be an american. The number of movies produced in the rest of the world is GREATER then the number of movies produced in the US, or even if you start calling every country that has english as a main language being clubbed together (wonder how the french part of canada feels about it)."

well duh. bollywood makes far more movies than hollywood. but bollywood movies don't spread out from india very much, except in indian expat communities, because outside of india, hindi or other indian languages are used very rarely. but outside of anglophone countries, you still find a lot of people who understand some english

you mention how french canada feels about this. what do you mean how they feel about it? i'm talking how much the movie's cultural influence is. what, french canadians go see a jason bourne movie and then go home and take a shower and vomit in disgust because they saw an english language movie? your attitude is bizarre. either they watch it, or they don't. that's all that matters. they vote with their feet, not with the attitude in their mouths. if they are in the theatre, watching the movie, they are influenced. done deal. if they watch the movie, the deed of cultural influence is done. if they dislike warmongering american neoconservative imperialism, or whatever, who cares? it doesn't change the outcome of going to the movies and being influenced

"This is only logical, while english is a very common language and a great many people speak it as their second, third language, it is not the most common language."

you don't seem to grasp logic. if everyone has language X as a second language, movies on language X will penetrate more people's consciousness than movies in language y. therefore, cultural output in language X will come to dominate. your observation about english supports my opinion, and destroys your conclusion, which isn't logical at all

"In europe, most tv-stations, even the commercial ones are man-dated by law to provide a certain amount of "native" broadcasting. That is why the station RTL4 which was clearly aimed at dutch audience spend money on a luxemburg program block in the early hours to satisfy the law (they were based there using a loophole)."

yes, this is called cultural protectionism. cultural protectionism is unnecessary in a healthy culture that isn't being eroded or feels threatened by another culture. a law requiring a certain amount of cultural output is enacted and enforced because one culture is afraid of being dominated and flooded out by another culture. which gets back to my original question about piracy threatening german, or czech, or danish culture: destroying the financial means to create a culture which feels threatened, would seem to be more damaging to a culture already feeling vulnerable. that's my original question. do you have an answer for it? the rest of your words seem to dance around unrelated subject matter. i think you think you are informing me about very obvious things, things which i already know. it's patronizing and strange ...

"As for how it is affected, it is not even clear yet how copyright infringement affects hollywood, how it affects local cinema in the rest of the world is anyones guess."

ah! an answer: you don't know

"We certainly are not going to get the truth about it from the media, they after all have a rather direct intrest in the matter."

huh? i asked you. i'm not the media, you're not the media

"So far however it seems to matter little, Remember non-hollywood movies tend not to pay quit as much to their stars. This matters a lot, to pay those idiotic salaries a Tom Hanks gets you need to make massive profits. Pay them a more modest wage and you have a lot more room."

ah! good answer, great answer, and one i agree with: people will always make movies in danish, or german, or czech, because they are proud of being danish, or german, or czech. well done

"Also what you claim about english content being more easily accepted in the rest of the world helps. I can far more easily find a seeded torrent of a US show then say a belgium program even if said program in the country itself is more popular."

another good observation. however, i don't know if you grasped the pessimistic conclusion about your observation. it means yet more danish, german, and czech kids will be watching english language media, because pirate channels means yet another avenue for more penetration by english language media

so for the sake of the dutch culture (i assume you're dutch), pirate dutch culture! ;-)

Re:Eh, wha? (1, Troll)

skroops (1237422) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382084)

Although you are correct about English not being the most commonly spoken language (second to Chinese), it is definitely the most spoken language on the internet, which is probably the more relevant point of discussion [http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm]. Also comparing the US against the rest of the world is a ridiculous. The iMDB lists 241697 English movies, certainly a pervasive amount of cultural content. (The iMDB lists an obviously low count of ~4000 Mandarin movies) Anti-americanism has it's place, but not belligerence.

Subsidized (2, Informative)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382020)

and since piracy is hugely prevalent in europe, i wonder what the epxerience has been for danish movie, czech music, etc.
Culture in most European countries is heavily subsidized. Since you ask specifically for Danish movies, I can tell that for commercial movies the state pay two thirds of the production costs, and for "artsy" movies more than that. Danish language books and TV is also heavily subsidized, so any negative effect of unauthorized copying is marginal.

Music is also heavily subsidized, although indirectly, through a "blank media tax". The media tax is distributed to commercial artists based on how much they sell, so that is affected by unauthorized copying. It is also totally unfair, as people creating free music (or Linux distributions) get no part of the media tax. Unlike books, movie, and TV, this tax does not seem intended to preserve Danish language and culture, rather to enrich (mostly foreign) distribution companies. It is insane, I have no idea how they got that system established.

I wish they would replace it with something similar to the system they use for books: only Danish language books are subsidized, the money goes directly to the authors (not the publishers), and the amount is propertional how popular the book is on the public libraries, not to its price.

I suspect the situation is different for Czech music, but their situation is also different in general. They were part of a communist country not that long ago, the country is relatively poor (but rich compared with other post-communist areas), and their president (Vaclav Klaus) is a Libertarian, or as close as you get in Europe, and thus likely opposed to any kind of subsidizes.

thank you for your answer ;-) (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382158)

i take it to mean that cultural protectionism is cultural protectionism is cultural protectionism. it exists, and the current changing of economic models of media distribution due to the internet doesn't change the concept or threaten the need or desire for cultural protectionism. because a nation's governmental cultural support and incentives lie outside of normal free markets anyways, and so feels no negative effects due to piracy

although it may change its implementation someday

Re:thank you for your answer ;-) (4, Informative)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382452)

Yes, most "small" language culture (and thus, small languages) is not able to survive in a free (global) market *anyway*, the unauthorized copying is not that much of an issue.

Most "small language" populations are not willing to pay for the true cost of local language culture directly, but are willing to pay indirectly for it through taxes.

The interesting corollary is that since the culture has already been financed indirectly through taxes, there is no reason to attempt to extract direct payment through distribution restrictions (copyright law). By removing the distribution restrictions one would also increase the added value of the culture, as per standard economic theory (the added value is the difference between the price of the product, and the value of the product to the buyer).

something is NOT rotten (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382566)

in the state of denmark ;-)

and please be exporting more connie nielsens and more viggo mortensens, thanks ;-)

Re:a question (4, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382106)

incidentally, i think that the financial support for all culture via traditional means SHOULD collapse.

Indeed, creative works should be a drain on society. Manual labor during the day and creative works during the night. Assuming you're not too tired to do anyhting.

new channels of financial support will emerge (concerts, advertising, etc.), but i think they will be permanently reduced funds. not that this is a big problem:

Don't know about you but I don't see films being done as concerts (as plays and films are entirely different mediums.) And of course, having reduced ability to do something is always good. Cutting back opportunity is always a benefit.

no more need for a middle man who presses lps and cds and tapes

Ok. So cost of duplication is gone.

the cost of production, sutdios, cameras, etc.: shrinking dramatically every day in the digital era. to make an album nowadays, all you need is a laptop

You love this example because it lets you convince yourself that all you need to do anything is a laptop, and you let yourself ignore ALL of the other costs that go into the production of an album. Never mind that human creativity reaches beyond music albums (and you need more than a laptop if you want to make something that sounds good. I hear microphones are pretty expensive still.)

people are motivated to do art for the sake of art.

Of course they are, but they need to eat too.

if you were guaranteed to make $0 from making a song or a movie, people would still make songs and movies.

They would, but you'd see a lot fewer people making it. Go ahead and tell yourself that ALL the bad things would go away and all that would remain would be good things.

it's called love of art, not love of money. money is an artificial injection into the creation of art

In a world driven by money and commerce, the injection of money into artistic works is NOT artifical. It's the natural product of the way the world works.

I'd rather have enforced copyright of reasonable length than be reduced to crap packed to the gills with advertising, or more American Idol type trash. Which is largely what you'd get if what you want were to happen.

Re:a question (2, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382438)

"Indeed, creative works should be a drain on society. Manual labor during the day and creative works during the night. Assuming you're not too tired to do anyhting."

got it. because creative output depends upon enforcing a corrupt and failed economic model. it always has. the creative class as a mafia of extortion is the only way it can ever get funds. pffffffft. moron: you confused me attacking the current failed economic model of cultural creation, for attacking the very idea of supprting cultural creation. which is an absurd mistake to make, but you made it

"Don't know about you but I don't see films being done as concerts (as plays and films are entirely different mediums.) And of course, having reduced ability to do something is always good. Cutting back opportunity is always a benefit."

yes, because in my brief comment, i outlined everythign possible. i didn't mention movie houses, but apparently you can't imagine that that controlled venue functions the same ways a concert does in terms of guaranteed financial support. oh, and about that cutting back of opportunity: the mpaa fought the vhs aftermarket tooth and nail because they thought it would destroy movie houses. now, they fight tooth and nail to preserve the dvd aftermarket. gee, they were wrong before. could it be they are wrong again, or that you are wrong? i mean, we all know that once people got television for FREE, supported by ADVERTISING, what I AM SUGGESTING, in the 1950s, that the movie industry was totally destroyed, right? fucking moron

"Ok. So cost of duplication is gone."

gee, i dunno. i just dragged this file into this folder and turned on emule. oh shit, that cost of duplication was $175,000. (snicker)

"You love this example because it lets you convince yourself that all you need to do anything is a laptop, and you let yourself ignore ALL of the other costs that go into the production of an album. Never mind that human creativity reaches beyond music albums (and you need more than a laptop if you want to make something that sounds good. I hear microphones are pretty expensive still.)"

uh... what? this is slashdot my friend. the people here tend to have a pretty good feel about how progress in technolgy changes things, leverages your effort in amazing ways, reduces the cost of doing things by orders of magnitude. sell your luddite static unchanging understanding of the world elsewhere dude. no one's going to buy it here. oh! but a good microphone is hard for middle class teenager to afford, so there! after all, advances in music, like the scratch turntable, the 808 drum machine, etc.: these addvances were all made by fabulously wealthy patrons of the art, not by poor starving teenagers who loved music. you obviously need a LOT of money to make good music, right? teehee

"Of course they are, but they need to eat too."

exactly what do you think that means? that you have a right to eat because you want to make a song? i want to make a song, so give me a steak. no, moron, this is how it works, and has always worked, and always will work: you have a passion in something, you invest your own time and energy in it, and you prove yourself by other people liking it, and THEN someone MAY reward you for your effort. just because you have a song in your head doesn't mean God Himself comes down from the heavens and gives you $. you speak from a position of false entitlement. must be some sort of upper middle class turd who never had to work a day in his life

in fact, if you love your art enough, you in fact may starve in order to make it. but you do not fucking go "oh, there's a jingle in my head and i want to commit it to audio tape so you owe me $." are you trying to make yourself look like a total moron on purpose?

"They would, but you'd see a lot fewer people making it. Go ahead and tell yourself that ALL the bad things would go away and all that would remain would be good things."

in fact, the digital HD revolution has results in scads of really awful movies. but:
1. all of them self funded
2. a few gems that are actually really good
the converse of what you said is to suggest because someone got $100 million to make a movie, that it is fantastic. i don't know about you, but how many $100 million pieces of shit movies have you seen? me? a lot. i think, instead, if you had 10,000 $10,000 movies, rather than 1 $100,000,000 movie, if 9,998 of those movies sucked shit, and 2 of those movies were good, you actually made a better financial investment ;-)

"In a world driven by money and commerce, the injection of money into artistic works is NOT artifical. It's the natural product of the way the world works."

it absolutely is. but you want to make it compulsory: give me money to make something. no. fuck you. you don't get that anymore. go ahead and pass amillion laws and hire a million laws to make it otherwise. you're up against a billion teenagers who love music and have little money and are more technological than you. it's inevtiable: you lose. deal with it. suck it up. move on. my model works. yours doesn't. nothing more to the argument really. capsice?

i'm talking about organic financial involvement: if someone proves themselves, they get $ eventually, from advertising, theatres, and NOTHING from free distribution: that's the mode by which they make their names in the first place

"I'd rather have enforced copyright of reasonable length than be reduced to crap packed to the gills with advertising, or more American Idol type trash. Which is largely what you'd get if what you want were to happen."

right. because before the internet and american idol, all we had was the commercial free offerings from music conglomerates. what are you smoking, and can i have some?

Anakata on TV (2, Informative)

rdradar (1110795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381306)

Anakata from The Pirate Bay also talked on tv [torrentcentral.net] about commenting their a few years ago bust and working style of anti-piracy companies.

Re:Anakata on TV (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 6 years ago | (#22383100)

The clip finishes up showing Swedish musician, Pernilla Andersson (apparently Sweden's answer to Vanessa Paradis), who is by the reporters account, suffering at the hands of The Pirate Bay. I personally couldn't find any of her work indexed on the site.

I thought this was a bit funny. I checked and couldn't find anything either. Maybe her record company paid for product placement ;)

Streisand effect (5, Insightful)

Phyrexicaid (1176935) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381308)

Seriously, does no one advise upper management that trying to block something on the internet just draws *more* attention to it? Happens over and over.

Re:Streisand effect (2, Informative)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381356)

Isn't that just a manifestation of "no publicity is bad publicity"?

Of course, the "Steisand effect" is very specific: an attempt to block information spreads it instead.

Re:Streisand effect (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381358)

Have you ever met someone in upper management? for some reason only the mentally retarded or stupid end up in those positions. They refuse to listen, keep trying the same thing over and over expecting different results, and their idea of reality is so distorted they are considered insane by most.

It is no surprise these idiots do this stuff.

Re:Streisand effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382944)

I hate the idea of filtering, but if we didn't block youtube, myspace, etc at work then it would be anarchy!

In Other News... (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381314)

In other news, RIAA and MPAA lawsuits have still not stopped illegal downloading. Stayed tuned for more from the Blatantly Obvious News Network!

Re:In Other News... (2, Funny)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381342)

Stayed tuned for more from the Blatantly Obvious News Network!
Wait... B.O.N.N? Are you saying something about the hygiene of your average slashdotter too?

Just maybe (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381326)

Those crafty TeleDK network admins were incompetent "accidentally on purpose" so people wouldn't find it too difficult to get round the block....

Re:Just maybe (2, Informative)

Spand (980339) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381580)

No they were not. They did as instructed by the court. It was during the allofmp3 case that they started using this kind of blocking. The court was presented with four (as far as I can remember) options on how to block a site, one of which was IP blocking. The court then found the DNS method sufficient despite it being possible to circumvent it. Also, I suspect the court thought of it as a "proven" technology, as an identical system was already in place to block child pornography sites.

and yes.. I live in Denmark.

Information Technology Board (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22381378)

Maybe IT needs an "IT Board" the way doctors have a "Medical Board". Instead of letting brain-dead politicians make decisions about things they do not (and probably can never) understand, we need to do intelligent self-governance.

Think about it. Is being subject to the cyberspace rules of politicians who know nothing about IT any different than being subject to the meatspace rules of politicians from some island half-way around the other side of the Earth?

Maybe it's time for another revolution?

Appropriate quote at the bottom of the page (2, Funny)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381380)

A furore Normanorum libera nos, O Domine! [From the fury of the norsemen deliver us, O Lord!] -- Medieval prayer

I always thought those were random :)

HuH ? (2, Insightful)

RockedMan40 (1130729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381430)

I certainly must have missed something. They are only doing a DNS level "block" of Pirate Bay? No shutting down of specific IP addresses that go to servers or at least some attempt at firewall (ie, Great Wall of China variant) filtering ?!?!?

I really hope some other ./'ers can say they are doing something different - or I am going to spend alot of time chuckling over the brandy tonight....

Re:HuH ? (3, Informative)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381588)

I certainly must have missed something. They are only doing a DNS level "block" of Pirate Bay? No shutting down of specific IP addresses that go to servers or at least some attempt at firewall (ie, Great Wall of China variant) filtering ?!?!?

You are missing something. The ISP was ordered to block Pirate Bay, and is sueing so that they no longer will have to do so. Therefore, I have no doubt the effort to block it was knowingly prefunctory.

Re:HuH ? (1)

RockedMan40 (1130729) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381776)

Okay - sensible.

Court says ISP must block Pirate Bay, and since only an idiot would do a 'friend of the court' testimony on how to make thier own ISP-lives miserable - they agreed to a inane proposal by someone who IS NOT tech savvy (obviously) in the least.

URL (1)

monschein (1232572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381474)

http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/ [xxx.xxx] .... oh jeez, they've figured out a way to get around our bullet-proof DNS filtering scheme guys!

Problem - Solution (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381750)

What is one of the things you've learned as a programmer?
There is always more than one solutions for a given problem?

QED, I would say.

Re:Problem - Solution (4, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382232)

The thing I learned was "If it compiles, ship it"

An interesting thought... (4, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381756)

...even if a far-fetched one. Say this trend continues...illegal downloading of music, movies, books, games, etc. There will ALWAYS be people that will buy their media, or at least some of it. What happens when the number of people stealing outnumbers those buying to the point where these corps are actually losing money? I don't just mean their sales have gone down, I mean to the point where they are in the red, no longer making any profit.

I think what will happen is already happening. People are figuring out that hey, for only a few thousand dollars, I can BUY the equipment to make my own music or movie, and release it independently.

Consider this. I invest $15,000 in some very respectable music equipment. I write all the songs, perform all the instruments, record it all, and master the mix. I then put up a website on a domain that costs me 10 bucks to register and only 15 bucks to host. I sell the music in multiple no-DRM formats on my website. In addition, I upload it onto various torrent sites, and include in the file a readme with a link to my website asking that people buy it. I upload a link to the site on Digg, Stumbleupon, Reddit, etc. I post the link in forums, in newsgroups. I submit my stuff to internet radio stations, post it on MySpace/Facebook...I even spend a little bit more money to get some advertising on various gaming and independent music websites. Let's assume that with all of this, my costs are now sitting right around $20,000 for total amount invested (not including time, of course.)

Assuming that my work is good and that people like it, I have the potential to make more money than I would with a record deal. Not only that, but I would OWN the equipment that I had made the album with, which I could then either sell, or I could keep and record another album thus making more money (especially since it would be a one time investment)

I'm not saying it would be easy, but the potential to earn far more than I invest is definitely there. By putting the album up on torrent sites and such with a link to my website, I am building an empire. I am getting free advertising. I am getting word of mouth. I am getting EXPOSURE, and it's not really costing me much of anything.

THIS is what will eventually be the downfall of the music industry (the movie industry not so much...equipment has definitely come a long way, but it's still very expensive compared to producing an album). The music industry won't be driven out of business by people downloading their crap for free...it will be little old me with full creative and distributive control over MY creation. It will be people KNOWING they can download my album because they don't have to worry about any lawyers running after them. It will be people SUPPORTING an artist like me, because I am doing the same thing they are: looking for new musicians who are doing it all on their own.

(Note: I am not actually doing this...I can barely play the nose whistle, much less any other instrument)

Re:An interesting thought... (3, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381846)

Say this trend continues...illegal downloading of music, movies, books, games, etc. There will ALWAYS be people that will buy their media, or at least some of it. What happens when the number of people stealing outnumbers those buying to the point where these corps are actually losing money? I don't just mean their sales have gone down, I mean to the point where they are in the red, no longer making any profit.

That's the difference between copyright infringement and stealing. If I steal something from you, you have to replace it somehow if you want to sell it to a paying customer. That's additional cost, and if I steal enough I can drive you into the red. If instead I copy your product, you still have the original and can sell it if you can find a buyer.

If, say, ten thousand people buy the product and that's enough to turn a profit, it doesn't matter if ten people pirate or if ten million people pirate - it's no cost to the producer. Even if the whole remainder of the earth's population pirated, it wouldn't affect the profit-loss sheet, as long as that hard core of buyers remains.

The remainder of your post I think is quite correct - that the middleman is going to become extinct in the future. But you seemed to imply that increasing the ratio of pirates to payers would produce losses. That's not true, as long as the absolute number of payers does not decrease. Reduce the payers to one tenth of their former number, that's a loss. Increase the pirates to ten times their former number, no difference at all.

Re:An interesting thought... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381890)

While I fully agree with your entire post, perhaps I wasn't clear with the beginning of mine...I meant as people turn from payers to pirates (which I have nothing to back up or prove with...it's more of a "what if" kind of deal) That of course brings up the question "would they have bought it anyway?" That is something that only the downloader can answer...

Re:An interesting thought... (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382336)

You still don't get it! If people can just download it, in full fidelity ( musically ) then why would they buy it? What is the added value in buying it? None. So this guy has spent his 20,000.00 and has all the tools. He puts SOME content on a torent, he seeds Facebook, YouTube or what have you to give people a taste. If you buy it from his site, unencumbered by ANY sort of rights management and then YOU post it on say, PirateBay or any of the other numerous sites and it just gets downloaded and no one buys it from HIS site anymore, then he will go broke, its a simple money in -v- money out equation. He STILL has to pay rent or a mortgage, Electricity, Water, Garbage, Taxes, clothes, shoes for kids ( if he has them ), Hosting Bill, bandwidth charges the whole deal.

I agree that middlemen are a pain, they suck money out of the income stream that the artist is generating. Finding a middleman that wont rip you off is really hard, but they serve a purpose, they keep ( or should ) the cogs and gears of the machine that sells your content greased and running smoothly.

That's the difference between copyright infringement and stealing. If I steal something from you, you have to replace it somehow if you want to sell it to a paying customer. That's additional cost, and if I steal enough I can drive you into the red. If instead I copy your product, you still have the original and can sell it if you can find a buyer.
This should show you why you are wrong. You wrote the key phrase, "if you can find a buyer". If you can get something for free are you going to buy it? I think not. I mean what is your motivation to lay down your hard earned cash? Some notion of altruism or "I support the arts" or "Wow this music is so good and relevant to my world view, that I will just go and give money to the creator of the content?" Please, perhaps 1 person in 10000 is that way, but the vast majority of the people will simply point their browser, click save-as and on to their iPod, Mp3 Player, phone or what have you it goes, and not even a note of thanks, much less money.

Re:An interesting thought... (1)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382636)

So what? the "artist" should have another job (or find some guy with money who likes his stuff to fund him just for the hell of it) if he cant make enough money by selling his art, for whatever reason. Really think back at musicians, authors, anything in the last century and name any who's art really improved that much after their first work (presumably written when it was not a source of income). You're a musician? get a job writing jingles or at a studio or something like that. A writer? Work as a journalist or at a publishing house. Or just work and have the art be you hobby, it can be fulfilling in and of itself trust me.

Note: I am an Amateur Musician

Re:An interesting thought... (1)

Sangui (1128165) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382018)

This has already started.
On What.CD? there's quite a few independent artists who upload torrents of their own work and then it's freeleeched for everyone. A link back to their site is there, and they do get donations.

And what a lot of people don't seem to realize, is that quite a few of the people committing internet piracy would never have bought the media in the first place, so they aren't actually losing any money.

Re:An interesting thought... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382102)

Exactly. There are certain bands who no matter what I will always buy their albums (Tool, Aphex Twin, etc.). Also, any internet radio stations that I listen to on a regular basis (destroyer.net, jungletrain.net, bluemars.org) I ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS donate to them. Same goes for independent artists exactly like who you described. In this way, I know that those musicians are getting 100% of the money that they have earned (minus their own costs), instead of just fattening the wallet of some music exec while he tosses a few pence at the very people who helped make him rich.

Re:An interesting thought... (1)

Dupont (1170383) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382600)

Right on! Only problem is the music industry is powerful and they're in a cul-de-sac here. And they know it. I bet a lot of blood will be shed before this war is over.

One of the artists on the frontline is definitely Benn Jordan a.k.a. The Flashbulb (which I bet you're familiar with since you like Aphex Twin, Pojut). The statement that came with his newly released album was just amazing. So was the music!
Checkit: http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-479.html [p2p-blog.com]

Re:An interesting thought... (1)

Slovenian6474 (964968) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382630)

I like this business model. The biggest appeal to downloading pirated music for me is that I know none of my money is going to support the RIAA and their actions. I have recently downloaded a few artists stuff on what.cd, liked their music, and made a donation. I like knowing that all my money is going to support the music I like rather than supporting business practices I don't agree with.

Re:An interesting thought... (4, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382338)

Then we run into the situation where the average person's greed and selfishness will have eclipsed that of the large companies. So selfish they'll take and enjoy all they want without supporting the creators. You may think that by initially undermining the large RIAA affiliated corps it's a good thing but the audience pandered to by TPB is generally a sign of a growing audience: warez fiends who feel entitled to everything for free.

A few thousand dollars (even 20k) is a non-trivial investment for most people. It gets even harder because at the value you quote you're only considering equipment and initial costs. If you start selling and transferring files, that $15/mo host will probably cut you off quickly and you'll have to move to something more expensive. I imagine that you'd be pushing to have your download income outpace your bandwidth bills, never mind costs for the rest of your equipment.

And as you said, you didn't include your time. Or your residence, food, or anything else you need to live. So you'll probably have to be working a job and doing this in your free time, which carries its own set of pitfalls.

I'd wager that the cost of running a business like this (since that's what you're doing) would not be high, but your income would probably not be much higher. I would be less surprised to see them operate at a consistent loss, since you aren't really selling anything. Giving your product away and hoping for handouts is a sure fire way to lose money on something.

And that only considers costs based around the production of an album of music. Never mind other, more expensive media (animation, video games) that don't have any real-life counterparts.

MOD PARENT UP! (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382372)

This is the crux of it. Someone who actually gets it.

Here's one solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22382700)

Sell SACD quality tracks, whether it's via download or a physical format. For your average Joe Downloader, it's VERY inconvenient to file-share something of that size. You can always allow the cheapskates to have their mp3s for free (or even sell at a nominal rate), but the real fans will buy the full quality stuff.

Re:An interesting thought... (1)

Stevecrox (962208) | more than 6 years ago | (#22383058)

I think your investment cost is massivily overstated, I was involved in a podcast project (we also worked with muscians) most of us found that buy buying the appropriate microphone (around £50 for me) and learning to use audacity we had a pretty powerfull audio mixer sitting infront of us. Musical instruments do tend to cost alot but everyone I know who can play an instrument usually owns one of those instruments. The cost of producing music has plummetted to a few basic criteria:

Owning a PC with a audigy/x-fi in it
Installing Ubunutu Studio or installing audacity
An exprensive microphone that covers a wide spectrum The foam thing you put infront of a Microphone to diffuse sound (really makes a different for bass and vocals) The ability to make a decent webpage to advertise The ability to make a cool looking MySpace page A quiet room to store all of this and most importantly...

The ability to play live, get a gig and build up a fanbase

These days your average person (assuming they can song write) could probably set themselves up for less than a £1k.

Sounds like it is time for classic quotes 101 (1)

sckeener (137243) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381800)

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"

What kind of Techs run that ISP? Have they never watched Star Wars?

It's going to court (5, Informative)

MortenLJ (686173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22381908)

An article in a mainstream Danish newspaper [politiken.dk] says that the case is going to court, other ISP's are actually chipping in to fund Tele2's suit against the imposed restriction.

Monkey See, Monkey Do (1)

PirateBlis (1208936) | more than 6 years ago | (#22382528)

TechDirt is reporting that the recent block placed on The Pirate Bay torrent site is not only relatively ineffective, but actually driving more traffic to the site because of the attention.
Apparently they didn't even see the trailer for Untracable, a movie where the news media does a report about a serial killer with a website where the more people that log on, the faster the guy dies. Then, low an behold, right after the news report airs, the guy dies in 4 minutes. Is it really hard to fathom the "Don't push the red button" theory? Hell, I'm off to download some of the new Future Weapons episodes off of ThePirateBay right now. Count me in as a statistic.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?