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!

Study Claims 0.3% Of BitTorrent Files Are Legal

Andorin (1624303) writes | more than 4 years ago

Piracy 1

Andorin (1624303) writes "It's common knowledge that the majority of files distributed over BitTorrent violate copyright, though the exact percentage is unclear. The Internet Commerce Security Laboratory of the University of Ballarat in Australia has conducted a study and found that 89% of files examined were in fact infringing, while most of the remaining 11% were ambiguous but likely to be infringing. Ars Technica summarizes the study: "The total sample consisted of 1,000 torrent files—a random selection from the most active seeded files on the trackers they used. Each file was manually checked to see whether it was being legally distributed. Only three cases—0.3 percent of the files—were determined to be definitely not infringing, while 890 files were confirmed to be illegal. " The study brings with it some other interesting statistics; out of the 1,000 files, 91 were pornographic, and approximately 4% of torrents were responsible for 80% of seeders. Music, movies and TV shows constituted the three largest categories of shared materials, and among those, zero legal files were found."
Link to Original Source

cancel ×

1 comment

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

Where's the beef? (1)

kaoshin (110328) | more than 4 years ago | (#33011508)

It is reasonable to suspect most P2P data is illegal, but I think it is also convenient to parade the results of a supposed study that can't even be linked to. In addition to neglecting a link to the actual study, TFA says the total sample consisted of 1,000 files. I am not a statistician, but doesn't it seem reasonable to have used a larger sample size given the ease at which it could have been processed?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?