Yes, There Are Many, Many, Many, Many Legal Uses Of BitTorrent

from the too-legit-to-quit dept

Mon, Oct 1st 2012 3:54pm — Mike Masnick

When the VCR first came on the market, nearly 100% of the TV and movie content it was used for was "unauthorized," because the big studios refused to offer films. Of course, thankfully, the Supreme Court eventually made it clear that just because it was "unauthorized," it didn't mean that taping TV for later watching was "infringing." But, if the metric you used to judge whether or not a new technology is a "pirate technology" is what percentage of its use was "unauthorized," you get a very skewed picture. Early on, all sorts of new and innovative technologies are mostly used for unauthorized copies... until the industry catches up. However, people don't often deal with trends very well, and they assume, quite incorrectly, that if a technology is initially used in an unauthorized manner, it must be a "piracy tool" and no amount of discussing how trends and adaptation works will convince them otherwise. Lately, there has been plenty of talk about BitTorrent -- with a few cases here and there pointing out that a high percentage (usually over 90% of works are infringing). The argument being made is that there is little redeeming value with BitTorrent since it's almost exclusively used for infringement.

Of course, over time, things change. Content creators begin to embrace the new, realize that it might not be evil, and suddenly we see more and more interesting case studies. And that seems to be happening with BitTorrent. The recent MusicMetric analysis of BitTorrent downloads for the first six months of 2012 found that 31% of downloads were for authorized files. Now, you can argue that this is still less than half of all files -- but it's a big step up from the standard claims that somewhere between 1% and 10% were authorized. It seems quite likely that the trend is moving in the right direction.

In an effort to highlight just how much authorized content is shared using BitTorrent, Bittorrent Inc. put together a neat graphic representation of just one day's authorized downloads, creating a massive page that includes a single dot for every authorized download. We've put a snapshot of just a small portion of that image below this post... but that's really only a fragment. If you go to the full page, there's an awful lot of scrolling involved. And that's because it's showing 689,955 authorized downloads. In a single day. Not bad.

In case you're wondering who's actually offering up music that's getting downloaded like this, Eliot van Buskirk tracked down the top ten authorized music acts on BitTorrent, which turns up a few surprises.

Death Grips: 34,151,432

Counting Crows: 26,950,427

Billy Van: 18,702,053

Gods Robot: 12,172,672

Way Too Sick: 9,974,321

Paz: 6,485,001

Bray: 5,878,492

Pretty Lights: 5,005,061

DJ Shadow: 4,349,048

Chester French: 523,356

As Eliot notes, that number one legal download, Death Grips, is signed to a major label deal on Epic (part of Sony Music). The Counting Crows are obviously a big name as well, and we wrote about their decision to use BitTorrent. They're ex-big label, but now independent. Also, DJ Shadow and Chester French were both associated with Universal sub-labels, though I do not know if either are still "signed." Either way, it's interesting to see that it's a mix of artists, including some from major labels and some others. It certainly looks like, perhaps, the idea that BitTorrent is just for infringement may have to be officially considered debunked.

Seriously, this is just a small fraction... click to see the whole thing

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: authorized uses, bittorent, trends
Companies: bittorrent

129 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Michael Long (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 4:09pm

Just for downloading illegal content? No. Primarily used to download illegal content? Yes.

Just where are the "top ten authorized downloads" in the current top 100 of all downloads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 4:20pm
  
  Re:
  top x is irrelevant to wheather it's primary use is illegal or not.
  
  there could be a lot of downloads of random legal files that outweigh the downloads of the top infringing downloads.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 5:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Except there aren't.
    
    BT is primarily used for infringement. Masnick knows this, but he's a piracy apologist and tries to pretend it's no big deal.
    
    He's isn't fooling anybody.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:15pm
  
  Re:
  Ok, for the sake of argument, assume the level of legal usage is in the noise ... does this then justify the guilty until proven (if you can) innocent approach? I do not think so, the end does not justify the means at all. Comparing the two instances of injustice the false accusation far outweighs the copyright infringement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:32pm
  
  Re:
  Just for downloading illegal content? No. Primarily used to download illegal content? Yes.
  
  Just where are the "top ten authorized downloads" in the current top 100 of all downloads?
  
  Wow. It was like Mike wrote that whole first paragraph just for you. Did you read it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:41pm
  
  Re:
  Google is on board with understanding the problem. BitTorrent is not a problem just as cars and guns are not a problem. The illegal uses of those things are a problem.
  
  Google see's the light, expect more, stop whining already...
  
  https://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/google-pro-artist-policy-changes-challenge-alleg ations-of-net-censorship/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 6:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, stop whining and fucking spamming your useless links, googlyPhil. Don't you have an underused recording studio to make money off, or does licking Lowery's shoes pay your rent?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 7:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      wow, pretty angry there? I think you might want to have a talking to google and not lowery, it's google's polcies in the links, not lowery's...
      
      https://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/google-pro-artist-policy-changes-challenge-alleg ations-of-net-censorship/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 11:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Google see's the light, expect more, stop whining already...
    
    Nope. Google is simply covering their own asses. That's it.
    
    And, seriously, blocking the words "Pirate Bay" or "torrent" from autocomplete is nothing. You can still type it out if you wish and it searches just fine. The only thing Google has really done is it gave the mouse a cookie. Now they will want milk. And a bedtime story. And a Lear jet.
    
    And if Google keeps on down that road they will eventually become irrelevant. People will find other uncensored search engines, perhaps even distributed ones like YaCy that no one can control.
    
    As for your Trichordist link. I have seriously tried reading that blog. It might possibly even have some good points, but I personally cannot get past the tone of the whole thing, which always sounds like whiny, spoiled has-beens longing for their glory days when I read it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 7:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      sounds to me like you're the one whining! look, you are right, google IS covering their asses, and expect more of it. more ass covering, and as it happens you'll be screaming louder... and as for the link... there's a lot more in there than just a tidbit about auto-fill...
      
      anyone can now de-list up to 10,000 infringing links from google search in a single dmca claim, thanks google!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 8:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        sounds to me like you're the one whining! look, you are right, google IS covering their asses, and expect more of it. more ass covering, and as it happens you'll be screaming louder..
        
        I'm not whining nor screaming at all. Why would I? I really don't care. Like I said, if Google starts censoring too much, I simply won't use them. There are other options.
        
        ..and as for the link... there's a lot more in there than just a tidbit about auto-fill...
        
        No, not really. Lowering rankings based on number of DMCA notices isn't too bad of an idea. But once again it may just ending up hurting Google in the end. If the internet population perceives it as censorship than it will be routed around by using other search engines.
        
        YouTubes's content management is old news and has been earning artists money on their creations directly for awhile now.
        
        anyone can now de-list up to 10,000 infringing links from google search in a single dmca claim, thanks google!
        
        Yeah. And that will never be abused, oh wait, that already happens everyday. Talk to me when Google starts denying access for abusers of their automated DMCA notice systems and makes them resort to paper DMCA notices. Then I might consider that system somewhat fair.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tor (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:26am
  
  Re:
  "Download illegal content"? I find that phrasing misleading. Since it's not the content but rather the way the downloading is performed that is illegal it would make more sense to talk about "illegal downloading of content".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 1:53am
  
  Re:
  Who's fault is that? The entertainment industries did not capitalise on such a useful technology when it was emerging and now it is probably too late. That is no reason to criminalise a whole technology and those who do use it legitimately like open source software developers and game developers.
  
  Vans are used for bank heists, should all vans be criminalised? A great many people drive while drunk, should all cars be criminalised?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    You're right, vehicles are used for bank heists. So you drive around without a license plate because you won't let The Man treat you like a criminal just because you drive a car/van, right?
    
    Oh wait, you have a plate on your car? Wow. Go take it off, quick!
    
    The only option when there is a problem is to criminalize something, right? That's a typical idea about innovation here I guess...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 7:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      the truth is, the internet industry has failed to innovate profitable business models, so it's had to create a transfer of wealth from working class artists,musicians and creators in a wall street style bail out by monetizing the artists work without consent or compensation.
      
      that's the truth.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:16am
  
  Re:
  What is relevant (and what the courts have usually used as a test) is "substantial non-infringing use".
  
  In other words the amount of illegal use is not relevant - there merely has to be a significant amount of legal use.
  
  100 million legal downloads looks substantial from where I'm sitting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vexorian, 2 Oct 2012 @ 8:53am
  
  Re:
  Just because something is used primarily (around 2/3) for illegal content it does not mean it should be eliminated. The real question I guess is , if the proportion of illegal bit torrent content really is larger than the proportion of illegal content in the whole web. The web has plenty of illegal things going on without the help of the torrents.
  
  The second question would be to ask ourselves why is it exactly that bit torrents are so used for illegal stuff. You'll find this is less about anything malicious in the protocol used but because torrents are just a GREAT protocol for decentralized high volume sharing of bits across high amounts of people. As such, we should probably consider the potential side effects of trying to outlaw or limit torrents if they will cause detriment to legal usage.
  
  As data becomes larger and the number of users raises, I think companies will be tend more towards using this great protocol. Already giants like Blizzard Entertainment do this and I bet they save up a lot in traffic by using torrents. Even though their "downloader" executable makes a big effort to avoid mentioning it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Milton Freewater, 2 Oct 2012 @ 10:40am
  
  Re:
  "Just for downloading illegal content? No. Primarily used to download illegal content? Yes."
  
  You'll notice Mike stepped very carefully discussing this issue ... be careful how you you use the word "illegal." Unauthorized and even infringing uses are not NECESSARILY illegal, and an explicitly unauthorized share becomes authorized the second a rightsholder changes her mind, not one second later.
  
  Of course, Mike's argument is that what I just said has become irrelevant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 4:18pm

Actually, it seems like they never DO adapt.
There are still people in the entertainment business who consider it a felony to rip a CD, or listen (even once) to a song without having to pay them for it and ask "Mother may I?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PlagueSD (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 4:21pm

BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
It's also used for patching a lot of MMORPG's (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games.) It's the fastest way to patch a game without having to worry about the downloads affecting game performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ferel (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 4:37pm
  
  Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
  As a World of Warcraft player who has played around with the game's launcher.exe download settings on patch day (and will NEVER do so again without reason):
  
  THIS.
  THIS.
  A THOUSAND TIMES, THIS.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt, 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:27pm
  
  Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
  I agree. I just downloaded the 3Gb game World of Tanks using a torrent on the developers website. I think it is an excellent method of distributing large files to thousands of people. It would cost a fortune to provide such a fast simultaneous download to thousands of users.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:32pm
    
    Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
    Uh, it does cost a fortune. BitTorrent doesn't magically produce bandwidth. The distributor just socializes the cost to all the distributees and their ISPs. As bandwidth caps proliferate, expect people other than the ISPs to start caring about who is paying for what...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
      Yeah, expect them to start bitching up a storm to their ISPs.
      
      If they have a cap, they probably can't download the game in the first place to share.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
      "Uh, it does cost a fortune. BitTorrent doesn't magically produce bandwidth. The distributor just socializes the cost to all the distributees and their ISP"
      
      So, you admit that people downloading content are paying for it indirectly? You're also admitting that most people don't mind paying for even free content so long as the cost is reasonable...
      
      "As bandwidth caps proliferate, expect people other than the ISPs to start caring about who is paying for what..."
      
      Yes, at which point they will complain to ISPs, who will be motivated to raise or remove bandwidth caps in those places where they have real competition. After all, why should people paying for a service be restricted if all they're doing is accessing legal content when there's no real technical reason why they should do so?
      
      I've never encountered a bandwidth cap for non-mobile content, btw. If it's common for you, I'd say you have a problem with a lack of competition and poor customer service in your area. Worth thinking about, hmmm?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        Nah I am just realistic enough to think that people who use a relatively tiny amount of an ultimately shared resource probably shouldn't be paying what somebody that uses three orders of magnitude more of that resource does. And that when a company offers "unlimited" something it will have to stop doing so when the tragedy of the commons inevitably occurs.
        
        I know that it's the model of Techdirt innovation: overcharge group X for something so group Y can get something else for cheap or free. It works sometimes...right up until it doesn't.
        
        The question you should be asking is why Grandmama who checks her email and watches two YouTube cat videos every day pays as much for her cable modem as her teenage grandkids do uploading and downloading Blu-Ray rips all day.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        "I know that it's the model of Techdirt innovation: overcharge group X for something so group Y can get something else for cheap or free."
        
        That is probably the biggest pile of crap you've ever typed, and that's saying something...
        
        "The question you should be asking is why Grandmama who checks her email and watches two YouTube cat videos every day pays as much for her cable modem as her teenage grandkids do uploading and downloading Blu-Ray rips all day."
        
        Because she chose the same package available to her from the ISP as the other guys did? Why doesn't she choose a different ISP if she feels ripped off or move to a different, lower cost package for the bandwidth she's using? If the ISP don't offer such a package, why not? What does that have to do with distributing legal content again?
        
        Funny how you ignore my points about competition, investment in infrastructure, etc. on an article about legal content, and try to shoehorn in bullshit about piracy and launch flailing pointless attacks on others. It's pretty pathetic, but it has sod all to do with the actual points being discussed. Just another sign that you can't handle the actual arguments being raised, I suppose, and then you wonder why you're labelled a troll...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 1:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        Who are you talking to again? This is about the third time you've gotten me confused with some other mortal enemy of yours.
        
        You seem really angry, and compulsively unable to not respond to a post from this other person (or people), based on your post history. It doesn't seem healthy to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 1:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        "Who are you talking to again? This is about the third time you've gotten me confused with some other mortal enemy of yours."
        
        Well, you are using the same handle, and the same moronic arguments that regularly come up. In fact, even the snowflake that should help tell ACs apart in a single thread is different from one post to the next.
        
        Perhaps, you should consider finding a way to differentiate yourself if you're that offended.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        I am unoffended. Perhaps you should stop with the ad-hominem attacks, then you will not have to worry so much about the hominem you're so intent on adding.
        
        We play by the rules that are set. We are the Aereo of Techdirt. You may not like it but our actions are totally legitimate. We innovate identity as needed and transcend it when we want.
        
        We are Anonymous. We are legion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 1:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        ""I know that it's the model of Techdirt innovation: overcharge group X for something so group Y can get something else for cheap or free."
        
        That is probably the biggest pile of crap you've ever typed, and that's saying something..."
        
        Actually, it's exactly the model.
        
        CwF+RtB (the seemingly abandoned mantra) basically suggests giving away everything for free, and charging a small group of people significant amounts of money for "special" things, such that you can afford to keep giving stuff away for free.
        
        It's the classic overcharge the suckers to pay for the smart people idea.
        
        "Because she chose the same package available to her from the ISP as the other guys did? Why doesn't she choose a different ISP if she feels ripped off or move to a different, lower cost package for the bandwidth she's using? "
        
        Paul, you are one of the people bitching every time the question of capped usage comes in. Are you now suggesting that capped usage is a better idea? Or should Grandmama use a SLOWER internet connection for her legal activities, so that the illegal activities guys can get a good rate on their higher speed connection?
        
        Are you suggesting legal users should suffer? Are you suggesting you support usage caps?
        
        Pick one side of the argument and stick with it. Flip Floping is Mike's domain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 1:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        Pasture owner: "Ok guys, I know that I let you all graze your sheep as much as you wanted, but those two factory farms moved in and now even my sheep are starving. No more free grazing."
        
        Techdirt Farmers: "Waaaah! The only reason you're shutting us out is because you don't want to innovate! If you spent money on fertilizer or genetically modified sheep and not fences we're sure there would be enough grass for everyone!!"
        
        Pasture owners: "Not really but ok. Still no more free grazing, those giant factory farms ruined it for everyone."
        
        Techdirt Farmers: "You just hate innovation! We are going to find a different pasture owned by an INNOVATIVE owner where we can graze for free again!"
        
        Pasture Owner: "well good luck, everyone has the same problem I do and Is also charging. One guy has free grazing still but it's shitty grass and he's miles away."
        
        Techdirt farmers: "COLLUSION! REGULATORY CAPTURE!"
        
        Pasture owner: "you could start your own pasture you know and grow your own grass..."
        
        Techdirt farmers: "haha that's impossible! It takes forever and is really expensive! And you won't let us grow on your land. Everything is so much better in Korea and Finland! Waaaah!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        LMAO!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 4:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        everyone got to vote this one funny... even if you don't agree with it, it has to be one of the funniest posts here in ages!
        
        Two fifth digital appendages up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 6:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        - Treating infinite digital goods with scarce ones. [check]
        - Missing the point. [check]
        - Assuming file sharers don't pay for anything when it's clear they do. [check]
        - Ignoring facts, using debunked ideas and fallacies. [check]
        
        That's fine trolling. It's amusing how you inverted the roles. You know, many new opportunities given you by the tech guys have been completely ignored and demonized by your bosses (the MAFIAA). Overall an amusing post, +funny for you =D
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 1:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        YOu.... really don't grasp CwF+RtB, do you? Seriously, take some time to understand what you are criticizing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        "It's the classic overcharge the suckers to pay for the smart people idea."
        
        So the record industry is wrong because they play content most people don't pay for? TV is wrong because the advertisers pay rather than the end user? Newspapers are wrong because I didn't pay for that copy of the free local paper I read the other day?
        
        Do you understand how silly you sound?
        
        "Are you now suggesting that capped usage is a better idea?"
        
        No. Is English actually your second language, because you do seem to read a lot of arguments that aren't there, many of which are the exact opposite of what's being suggested.
        
        Re-read and try to understand what I'm actually saying, not the phantom fiction you always seem to come up with.
        
        Here's a hint: at no time did I mention caps.
        
        "Or should Grandmama use a SLOWER internet connection for her legal activities, so that the illegal activities guys can get a good rate on their higher speed connection?"
        
        The fact that you had to phrase this argument as "poor old grandma vs the evil pirates" rather than, say, a light user vs. someone who does a lot of gaming/Netflix is all that really needs to be said about your bias and motivation. Why not address reality rather than the crusading fiction you invent?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        "So the record industry is wrong because they play content most people don't pay for?"
        
        Hmmm... by "they" I meant radio, of course, in case you didn't notice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 4:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        "The fact that you had to phrase this argument as "poor old grandma vs the evil pirates" rather than, say, a light user vs. someone who does a lot of gaming/Netflix is all that really needs to be said about your bias and motivation. Why not address reality rather than the crusading fiction you invent?"
        
        No angry man, I was using someone else's comment terms and adding my opinion on them. Grow up, stop being so angry all the time.
        
        "So the record industry is wrong because they play content most people don't pay for? TV is wrong because the advertisers pay rather than the end user? "
        
        No, those are all examples of audience aggregation, but without risk to the content producer. The content producer gets paid, they don't just hope people buy their t-shirts because the stuff was on the radio or TV.
        
        Your example fails rather massively, and shows a lack of basic understanding of business. You don't expect the cheese company to take a risk on a pizza giveaway at dominoes, if they have a model that supports free pizza for ads, they are still going to pay for their cheese, regardless.
        
        "No. Is English actually your second language, because you do seem to read a lot of arguments that aren't there, many of which are the exact opposite of what's being suggested."
        
        No, thankfully Queen E made sure I got a reasonable education in her english. I also speak 3 other languages and working on number 4.
        
        However, your point was grandma should pay less. HOW? If you are selling uncapped service, everyone pays the same for access. Your only choices are for legal users to get lower speeds to pay less, or for a cap to exist. Which one is it? Punish the legal light users with lower speeds, or cap the hogs?
        
        Do you have a third option? The fantasy "make it all cheaper" isn't on the menu.
        
        As the AC asks: Why are you so angry all the time? No girlfriend (or boyfriend... )?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 5:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        "No angry man, I was using someone else's comment terms and adding my opinion on them. Grow up, stop being so angry all the time."
        
        Whose words? All I see is an AC causing problems again. Maybe if you'd address the real points rather than launching attacks I might be a little less "angry"? Maybe you're just frustrated that you're scared to provide a handle so that your silly comments are able to be differentiated from all the other ACs? Maybe I'm just getting you guys mixed up, but who knows?
        
        "No, those are all examples of audience aggregation, but without risk to the content producer."
        
        As much as torrenting software updates and legal software. You know, the thing discussed at the top of this thread before it derailed into bullshit about piracy?
        
        "Your example fails rather massively"
        
        Which example? I only addressed the points you raised.
        
        "I also speak 3 other languages and working on number 4."
        
        You still lack reading comprehension in at least one it seems.
        
        "If you are selling uncapped service, everyone pays the same for access"
        
        Are caps the only way to differentiate service now? If you offer a cheaper capped service to some users, does that mean that it's impossible to offer uncapped service to others? Can't grandma be offered a cheaper meter where she's charged less if she uses below a certain amount? You seem to be only cherry picking one possible part of the argument, and putting words into my mouth that don't exist.
        
        "Your only choices are for legal users to get lower speeds to pay less, or for a cap to exist."
        
        Again, you equate heavier bandwidth users with people doing something illegal, which is an outright lie. You don't even understand the basic points in front of you, no wonder you have so much of a problem when faced with opinions that aren't black and white. "Legal users" is a group that includes people doing tasks that can involve high bandwidth usage.
        
        "Do you have a third option? The fantasy "make it all cheaper" isn't on the menu."
        
        Even if it was, it wasn't suggested by me. Once again, you fail to comprehend my actual arguments and go with what you imagine instead. That's why it's a fantasy - nobody but you is suggesting it. Try addressing the real points being made. It's quite possible to discuss this point without pretending that all heavier users are pirates, so try addressing the point without such distortions. OK? Let's try one more time:
        
        If it's so wrong that light users are subsidising heavier users, whose responsibility is it to offer them a better deal? Why not the ISP? If it is the ISP, why are they incapable of offering light users a good deal without negatively affecting heavier users?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 5:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        " Maybe if you'd address the real points rather than launching attacks I might be a little less "angry"? Maybe you're just frustrated that you're scared to provide a handle so that your silly comments are able to be differentiated from all the other ACs? Maybe I'm just getting you guys mixed up, but who knows?"
        
        I addressed your points, they were weak.
        
        Mike doesn't require a name, so I am and a number of other people don't use any. If you don't like it, take it to the boss.
        
        You are getting people mixed up. You are so busy being pissed off that you can't even take the time to read.
        
        "If it's so wrong that light users are subsidising heavier users, whose responsibility is it to offer them a better deal? Why not the ISP? If it is the ISP, why are they incapable of offering light users a good deal without negatively affecting heavier users?"
        
        Oh smarty, how would you do that? Come on... what would stop people from getting a light price and then suddenly launching a seeding campaign on your favorite movies?
        
        Waiting... you might realize at some point what you have just suggested twice and not wanted to say twice.
        
        (hint: usage caps).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 6:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        You are treating everyone as criminals which is precisely what this article debunks. Oh and copyright infringement is a civil issue.
        
        Netflix uses shitloads of bandwidth. If the Grandma uses very little the ISP can offer the same speed with data caps compatible with her usage and offer uncapped connection to the heavier users.
        
        Unless you are also implying that facts don't matter and Netflix and the 31% of legal bittorrent traffic are somewhat "illegal" in your magical neverland. Because PaulT and the article are talking about an entirely different (and real) situation.
        
        Also, knowing words in English doesn't mean you speak it. You keep failing hard at reading comprehension. Unless of course you are doing it on purpose, which I think to be the case whenever you comment here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2012 @ 7:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        "You are treating everyone as criminals which is precisely what this article debunks. Oh and copyright infringement is a civil issue."
        
        I don't do that. Quit projecting your anger at some other group onto me. I makes you look petty and vile.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 6:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        "I addressed your points, they were weak."
        
        Hmmm... I must have missed that. Probably somewhere among all the points you imagined I raised that I didn't suggest for a second.
        
        "Mike doesn't require a name, so I am and a number of other people don't use any."
        
        Nor would I wish to force you. However, the price of anonymity is that it's impossible for people to differentiate your comments from those of others who make the same choice. If my mistaking your comments with those of another AC whose arguments you're parroting is a problem for you, is that really my problem to resolve?
        
        "You are getting people mixed up. You are so busy being pissed off that you can't even take the time to read."
        
        You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about me, yet again. I'm perfectly calm, just shooting the breeze here while bored and trying to work out why some people are so intent on misdirection. I'm familiar with the tactics of a regular AC who tries to bring piracy into discussions about legal content, which is what happened here.
        
        OK, just explain this to me: how am I supposed to tell you people apart? The snowflake changes if you change your IP address and there seems to be a few of you making similar points with similar writing styles.
        
        So come on, which technique would you suggest I use to avoid confusing you in the future?
        
        "Come on... what would stop people from getting a light price and then suddenly launching a seeding campaign on your favorite movies?"
        
        Did it hurt when you moved those goalposts again? You'll give yourself a hernia if you keep doing that.
        
        "Waiting... you might realize at some point what you have just suggested twice and not wanted to say twice."
        
        No, I've not mentioned caps at any point, nor are caps the only solution to any "problem" you've raised. Again, you seem to have some serious reading comprehension issues.
        
        Is it really so hard to understand that legal uses can involve high bandwidth that you're incapable of grasping anything that doesn't depend on the assumption of piracy? Do you lack so much imagination that there's literally nothing other than caps that you can see that addresses the fictional situation that you or another AC conjured up?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 8:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        " Oh smarty, how would you do that? Come on... what would stop people from getting a light price and then suddenly launching a seeding campaign on your favorite movies?
        
        Waiting... you might realize at some point what you have just suggested twice and not wanted to say twice.
        
        (hint: usage caps)."
        
        Actually, Comcast recently did away with their bandwidth caps, and are moving to a tiered data plan. If you are a light user, you pay x amount, if you are a heavy user, you pay y amount, and if you are on the light tier plan and go over the bandwidth that your package allows, you get moved to the heavy tier plan.
        
        Yeah, light users shouldn'tt have to pay as much as heavy users, which is exactly what a tiered plan accomplishes without data capping heavy users.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 9:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        That's just data capping by a nice name... the higher package is unlimited, but is priced higher, the lower, CAPPED level is, well, lower.
        
        Paul doesn't want to suggest caps, it goes against his view. He wants ISPs to magically be able to give Grandma a lower price, without knowing what her grand children will do with the connection on the weekends.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 9:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        It is not data caps. You are not limited to a cap that reduces your speed to nill or overcharges you per megabyte once you exceed it. It provides reasonable fees for high profile users while at the same time not penalizing the light users if they get over their plan exceptionally.
        
        Also, the ISP is not your babysitter it doesn't have to know your grandchildren will use shitloads. It's no different of being a heavy user on weekends because of netflix and using very little during the weekdays because you are working.
        
        You are just trying to twist this to fit to your own flawed opinions. Pitiful.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 9:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        Jesus christ. You're still harping on and not understanding a thing.
        
        Paul has said if grandma needs less bandwidth then the ISP should provide it, at obviously a discounted price. And for those who need more bandwidth then the ISP give it to them at a higher rate.
        
        Also, it is perfectly possible to use large amounts of bandwidth legally (since I've seen you make basically say that high bandwidth use = automatic piracy/illegal downloading). I work in IT. When I'm not at my actual place of employment I do work out of my house for extra cash. Fixing computers, rooting and flashing ROMs on Android phones, etc. My ISP, AT&T went from unlimited bandwidth to having a data cap of 150 GB a month. Which I routinely hit or pass. How so? Windows updates. Software downloads (AutoCAD from Autodesk, I download faster at home than at work and we need the software, so I just get it at home and take it to work to use with the licenses we purchase online, ditto Microsoft Office and a plethora of other programs.) ROM downloads (which greatly vary in size from 90 MB to 700 MB each, some of which are updated DAILY). Music streaming (iHeartRadio, Pandora, Spotify). Video streaming (Netflix). Game downloads/updates (Steam, Humble Indie Bundle). I could go on. But yeah, totally legal and highly bandwidth intensive.
        
        Also, Paul never specifically mentioned data caps. He merely said the ISPs should be able to give grandma less bandwidth if that's all she needs at a lower rate. YOU are the one saying, "No! That's not blah blah blah!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 3 Oct 2012 @ 12:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        Funny how you people always try to make magical predictions about my worldview, then come up with something absolutely stupid that doesn't match my views at all. Then you wonder why I presume it's one moron being an idiot rather than several of you...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 3 Oct 2012 @ 5:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
        I know that it's the model of Techdirt innovation: overcharge group X for something so group Y can get something else for cheap or free.
        
        as opposed to the legacy industry model , which is to overcharge everyone so I can have a private jet...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
      Uh, it does cost a fortune. BitTorrent doesn't magically produce bandwidth.
      
      Not magically - but it does use the network more efficiently. The total bandwidth required is less because it uses more local communication. If you understood how computer networks work then you would realise that bittorrent IS a way to get more from less...
      
      Sensible ISPs will adapt their network architectures to allow bittorrent to work better - reducing cost.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:02pm

BitTorrent certainly has legal uses but it looks mighty optimized for plausible deniability and avoiding detection about who is downloading and uploading what.

MMO patches are a great use when everybody wants to download at the same time and the originator wants to use all their customers' bandwidth instead of paying for their own. I know a couple university students who got their Internet disconnected for a day because they left their WoW patchers open overnight and managed to rack up more bandwidth use than anybody else on a campus of 20,000 (they had offices with unrestricted, non-dorm-net connections).

Using BT for patches is also very user-unfriendly for many classes of users. I got WoW from a store many years after it became popular. Of course, I was 2GB behind on patches. Nobody seeds the old patches, except Blizzard who had a token 25kbps feed up as part of the torrent swarm. Took more than 24 hours on fast broadband to patch the game so I could play. It's a legitimate use but not a customer-friendly one...the simpler solution (just paying for enough bandwidth to serve patches for your own software instead of expecting your customers to do it for you) would have been better.

The primary legitimate advantage of BitTorrent seems to be for Blizzard to offload their Internet costs off to AT&T and Comcast and universities around the world. A Techdirt business model winner to be sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:09pm
  
  Re:
  Wow, it must really suck to live in such terror.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:48pm
  
  Re:
  "wants to use all their customers' bandwidth instead of paying for their own."
  
  You say that like it's physically possible to buy bandwidth that can support 1,000,000 downloads simultaneously. I dare you to find an Internet connection that can support WOW's servers on patch day.
  
  As for your WOW problems, maybe that's your Internet connection sucking it up. I can download the game, the patches, and the expansions in about 6 hours (and that was my old connection).
  
  Then we have people like the Black Mesa Source team that can't afford an Internet connection that can support the however many dozens of thousands of downloads they were asked to support. Their website was down for hours. The only way I got it was threw Bittorrent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 11:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "You say that like it's physically possible to buy bandwidth that can support 1,000,000 downloads simultaneously. "
    
    How many players? Really?
    
    Come on. A single point in time they might get a high number, but they don't have hundreds of millions of players, and they certainly are not all online at the same time.
    
    Your argument means nothing. They can easily get more than enough bandwidth to distribute their software, but they wouldn't be profitable if they actually have to pay distribution.
    
    As the other AC said, this is a winner Techdirt business model - get someone else to pay!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Somehow big Steam patches for Team Fortress 2, which come out about every other day, get disseminated by Valve without me having to reconfigure my router and use up my upload bandwidth. But I guess Gabe Newell is just an idiot/technophobe/doesn't care about his customers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 6:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You see, the bandwidth being used was already paid by me to my ISP. It simply must be able to supply it. What those p2p downloaders do is to distribute bandwidth more efficiently.
      
      Too bad the telcos usually sell more than they can handle, huh?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:49am
  
  Re:
  Really? This is your talking point now? That using torrents to distribute legal content is somehow immoral because it allows people to donate bandwidth of their own free will in order to keep costs down for everybody? That because it's an end user paying Comcast 10c for their patch download bandwidth instead of Blizzard paying $200k for everybody, that's some kind of major problem?
  
  Good luck with that, but you're looking even more desperate than normal. Seriously, find a good argument or concede a point for once.
  
  "Nobody seeds the old patches, except Blizzard who had a token 25kbps feed up as part of the torrent swarm."
  
  If only you weren't so clueless on this subject, you might have realised that there are many 3rd party FTP and torrent sites that would have provided much faster downloads. Failing that, you could probably have downloaded a trial or a pre-patched ISO of the game that would allow you to install an up-to-date client in one shot.
  
  Of course, since you're one of those clueless fools who are trying to shut those sites down because someone might have also uploaded infringing content, you did kind of cause your own problems there. No sympathy, sorry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 1:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not immoral, just a customer-unfriendly business decision. We don't make moral arguments here because all moral arguments are irrelevant. Blizzard, in their attempt to save a few bucks, makes the best option for me to scour the Internet for dozens of patches or find a questionably-legal patched ISO from God knows what source?
    
    If they made those the fastest or the most convenient option because of, say, DRM, they'd be eviscerated here. But because they do it to save some money at my expense and because they lend some credibility to a protocol otherwise used for unprecedented-scale piracy, I'm the huge idiot - not them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 1:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Not immoral, just a customer-unfriendly business decision."
      
      Funny, whenever I criticise a customer unfriendly business decision, like infected content with DRM so that I can't use it properly, or regionally restricting content I would otherwise be able to import in a perfectly legal fashion, you people tell me to bend over and take it. I've been abused many times on this site merely for daring to point out that such decisions are causing more lost sales from me than piracy ever could.
      
      Why the double standards? Why is Blizzard in the wrong for doing something that doesn't negatively affect any of their current customers, yet it's OK for Ubisoft to make their games unusable if I'm even suspected of piracy?
      
      "Blizzard, in their attempt to save a few bucks, makes the best option for me to scour the Internet for dozens of patches or find a questionably-legal patched ISO from God knows what source?"
      
      No they haven't. Honestly, what makes you think they'd guarantee a faster download if they offered everything via HTTP or FTP? Why didn't you download the most recently updated client from Blizzard directly (last time I checked, they offered full client downloads with non-torrent options), or an official mirror? Why is it a problem that they're looking after live subscribers better than people who haven't subscribed for years?
      
      You made the choice, and you're trying to parley your own cluelessness into an attack on Blizzard and Techdirt. It doesn't fly for those of us who know reality, and if this is the best you've got you're not going to change anyone's mind here. At best, you look like a fool who couldn't work out his options when he decided he wasn't happy with the service he was getting. At worst, you look like an obsessed fool who just *has* to attack others rather than concede he's wrong, even when he so clearly is.
      
      "If they made those the fastest or the most convenient option because of, say, DRM, they'd be eviscerated here."
      
      I'm sorry you're too stupid to work out the difference, I really am. But you've clearly made up your own mind yet again, without trying to understand the arguments being made either in this thread nor in those regarding DRM and other restrictions.
      
      "But because they do it to save some money at my expense and because they lend some credibility to a protocol otherwise used for unprecedented-scale piracy, I'm the huge idiot - not them."
      
      You said it. The fact that you think that a mere file transfer protocol should be avoided because someone else uses it for things you don't like is evidence of that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There was no obviously faster option at the time, I had plenty of time to look while the download was trickling in at the rate the Mars landed receives updates. I am glad your speculation trumps my actual experience though. As I said I did finally track down some of the patches on FileFront or something.
        
        The use of BitTorrent here inconvenienced an actual, paying customer because of a big company's greed. So why do you support it so much? Is it because it's what's best for the customer (it wasn't) or because it helps you make an argument that it's really not all about piracy?
        
        I don't care if you use it or not. Just admit that you don't care about the fact that it is a massive engine of piracy, or that you don't think any technology should ever be outlawed because every technology has at least some obscure "legitimate" use.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There was no obviously faster option at the time, I had plenty of time to look while the download was trickling in at the rate the Mars landed receives updates"
        
        I have to take your word for the experience you had at the time, but I definitely remember having access to plenty of non-torrent downloads last time I played WoW (about 3-4 years ago). The link already mentioned by another AC is one I remember from that time, and it still contains non-torrent links. It's a top result in every Google search I just tried.
        
        I can't trump your own experience, but I fail to see how you found it so difficult to find a different source. I can perhaps understand why you would be wary of 3rd party links, but all that really means is that you're complaining that Blizzard don't look after dormant users as well as they look after current subscribers - and even that's somewhat undermined by them offering updated clients that you could have used instead (although they may not have done at the time).
        
        None of this either supports the point you're trying to make or undermines the legitimate usage of torrents to distribute legal content. At worst, your problem is merely that less popular content isn't seeded as quickly as popular content - but would an FTP or HTTP service have really guaranteed you a faster download? That's debatable.
        
        "As I said I did finally track down some of the patches on FileFront or something."
        
        Erm, no you didn't. Seriously, I've just re-read all of your posts in this thread and I can't see that, ctrl+F filefront just brings up the post I'm replying to.
        
        Sorry, unless I'm really missing something, I can only go on what you tell me. If I am missing a quote somewhere then I apologise, but I don't see it.
        
        "Just admit that you don't care about the fact that it is a massive engine of piracy"
        
        Only so much as I care that the tape recorder I used to own could be used for piracy, my car could be used for drink driving or that the knife I used to slice my dinner last night could have been used to maim or kill somebody.
        
        The fact that you think a networking protocol is "an engine of piracy" just screams about how clueless you are, especially if you think that banning BitTorrent would actually stop piracy in any way, shape or form. You know what else can be used for piracy? HTTP. Actually, most people find pirated files by using a web browser rather than the torrent client. Isn't that more of an "engine of piracy" by your logic?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 3:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course HTTP is an engine of piracy. I don't deny it nor do I dedicate my life to running a blog trying to convince people it's not.
        
        If I start with the mens rea, as some people do, of "how can I facilitate and, more importantly, profit from, piracy whilst minimizing my legal risks" then BitTorrent makes a more attractive engine since hosting a magnet link or torrent file adds a layer of deniability between me and the piracy. And, the more I am willfully ignorant of what users do with the resources I provide, the more I am insulated.
        
        Off the top of my head it's hard to think of a legitimate business where knowing less about what goes on in it is more advantageous than knowing more...perverse incentives I guess.
        
        You don't have to ban something outright to limit the negative impacts of that thing. Cars made bank robbery easier so we put license plates on them. Some drugs were dangerous or ineffective so we limited what you could say about them and who could sell them.
        
        But I forgot, piracy is awesome for everybody, so why should we worry about it at all? We should be looking for new sources of suckers to subsidize us undercutting "competitors" in some other field!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 3:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Of course HTTP is an engine of piracy. I don't deny it nor do I dedicate my life to running a blog trying to convince people it's not."
        
        Well, nobody here runs a blog dedicated to saying that torrents aren't used for piracy either. Unless you're confusing people pointing out that torrents have legitimate uses with saying that illegal uses don't exist, which is rather silly. But, at least you recognise that a technology is neutral of its usage which is a start.
        
        As for the rest of your post, you're not making a lot of sense. You seem to be starting from the idea that the host of a torrent file would somehow know less about the person downloading that file than the person downloading the full file from a file server. I'm interested to see how you reach that conclusion, but surely the IP is logged in either case? What other information would an FTP server have that a torrent site would not, other than having a copy of the actual file stored locally?
        
        From there, you seem to be looking at torrents purely from the point of view of piracy, and working back from that conclusion. That's both dumb and dishonest, and a poor method of looking at anything. I know it's easier if you ignore the very legal content that the article you're commenting on discusses, but you're only addressing a fantasy if you do it that way. What about the legitimate businesses who use torrents for exactly the same benefits as the pirates?
        
        "But I forgot, piracy is awesome for everybody, so why should we worry about it at all?"
        
        Perhaps you can point out where I, or anyone here, has said that? Of course you can't. It's a fiction you've invented so that you can avoid discussing the real issues, and avoid facing the fact that every "solution" you support to fight piracy has unintended consequences on people who do nothing of the sort. The only way to actually reduce piracy is to address the reasons why people do it in the first place, not attack whatever the current technology is that makes it easier. As the industry has found out the hard way, all while attacking those of us pointing out how stupid it is.
        
        "Some drugs were dangerous or ineffective so we limited what you could say about them and who could sell them."
        
        Yes, and that's stopped the use of illegal drugs and didn't cause any problems or unintended consequences, right? Seriously, that's the model you want to copy to fight this problem? Good luck...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Some drugs were dangerous or ineffective so we limited what you could say about them and who could sell them.
        
        Wait. When has talking (or even writing) about any kind of drug ever been limited, at least in the US? I must have missed that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 1:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hey, look what I found in about three seconds:
      http://www.wowwiki.com/Patch_mirrors
      
      A list of all the incremental patches and mirrors they are on. Huh. Ain't search pages grand?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 1:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hey, look what I found in about three seconds:
      
      http://www.wowwiki.com/Patch_mirrors
      
      A list of all the incremental patches and mirrors they are on. Huh. Ain't search pages grand?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:27am
  
  Re:
  BitTorrent certainly has legal uses but it looks mighty optimized for plausible deniability and avoiding detection about who is downloading and uploading what.
  
  Actually it isn't - which is why the copyright trolls are able to log so many IP addresses.
  
  If you want to hide your actiuvities there are much better ways to do it than bittorrent (eg VPNs, freenet & similar, file lockers etc etc).
  
  Bittorrent is more like putting a big flag up saying what you are doing - especially for naive users who only want to download but don't bother to turn off the auto-re-upload option.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Casey, 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:06pm

I use torrents to download Arch and Slackware Linux ISOs. Entirely legal and easily the best alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:14pm

Out of those ten, I've only heard of one (Counting Crows). And I don't listen to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:59pm
  
  Re:
  and that's relevant how?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Colin, 1 Oct 2012 @ 6:18pm
  
  Re:
  I can't even begin to guess what your point might be with that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Larry, 1 Oct 2012 @ 6:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I can. I call it "I don't like mustard". So, you ask the person in charge of shopping to go buy groceries and since they don't like mustard, you don't get any. Doesn't matter if you paid or not, what you like, or what your guests may like. Just no mustard because "I DON'T LIKE MUSTARD SO FUCK YOU".
    
    Yeah, it's THAT silly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 1 Oct 2012 @ 7:59pm
  
  Re:
  Therefore Eliot van Buskirk is wrong...?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- F!, 2 Oct 2012 @ 1:23am
  
  Re:
  Counting Crows aren't really my cup of tea (I don't listen to them either), but DJ Shadow is awesome. Been a long while since I've used torrents for anything besides linux and video game downloads/patches (yes, all totally legit). I had no idea he was releasing stuff over torrent, but now I'm going to have to fire it up again and seek that shit out!
  
  Look DJ Shadow up on wikipedia if you think you might be interested in THE most ass-kickingest instrumental hip-hop pioneer...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dj_shadow
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:22pm

I'm going to start the BitTorrent cafe. You have to pay me to eat there, but you also have to bring your own food, chairs, tables, silverware... Also, if nobody is around when you show up there might not be that much on the menu. I'll keep a pretzel basket out just in case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:54am
  
  Re:
  It is possible to make such a business model work. It's called "renting out a venue". It's done by literally hundreds of thousands of established businesses around the world.
  
  Just because you're a fuckwit doesn't mean other people can't make a good business idea work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cosmicrat (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:28pm

Distribution solution?
I've always felt that BitTorrent or something like it could be useful to commercial distributors (like Netflix and Hulu) to reduce their bandwidth costs. The problem of course is how do they introduce DRM into the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- F!, 2 Oct 2012 @ 4:18am
  
  Re: Distribution solution?
  "The problem of course is why would they introduce DRM into the equation."
  
  FTFY. DRM doesn't work. Never has, never will. Has been proven again and again as one of the leading causes of piracy. Sorry if I come off as pedantic, but are you new here?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 4:55am
  
  Re: Distribution solution?
  You could ask Joost how well that worked out...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
McCrea (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 5:47pm

Effective Communication
When I put eggs on the shopping list, I clearly specify:

one (1) [*] dozen eggs, that being equivalent to twelve (12) [************] authorized individual eggs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nina Paley (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 6:03pm

archive.org
Archive.org also encourages BitTorrents:

The BitTorrent protocol is now the fastest way to download items from the Archive, because the BitTorrent client downloads simultaneously from two different Archive servers located in two different datacenters, as well as from other people who have downloaded these torrents already. The distributed nature of BitTorrent swarms and their ability to retrieve torrents from local peers may be of particular value to patrons with slower access to the Archive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 6:12pm

"the idea that BitTorrent is just for infringement may have to be officially considered debunked."

Oh, look at the flying straw! What bullshit!

Mike, truly, this is a full of yourself conclusion that would make a politician proud (white house called again?). It's rare to find anyone that says bittorrent is ONLY for illegal stuff. Rather, the majority of it's traffic is for piracy, and the design of bittorrent is specific to help cover illegal activity and make it harder to track file sources.

To suggest otherwise is to be completely and utterly dishonest. You wouldn't lie, would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 6:20pm
  
  Re:
  Rather, the majority of it's traffic is for piracy, and the design of bittorrent is specific to help cover illegal activity and make it harder to track file sources.
  
  Actually, as we've pointed out since the very beginning of BitTorrent... it's quite the opposite. Since it purposely reveals IP addresses of those involved, it's a really *bad* tool for piracy, making it quite easy to track the sources of files. If you wanted to architect something to keep sources secret, there are much better ways.
  
  But you're not big on facts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 6:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike, please! You once again ignore the big end and point at the small end.
    
    Yes, IP addresses are revealed. You however keep going on that an IP address is not a person, therefore in your world, it's meaningless. Why hide behind this one when you routinely "debunk" it?
    
    Why have there been moved to things like magnet links and other techniques to hide where a file comes from? Why use an unreliable distributed system where bandwidth is so cheap, that an artist could easily offer their own download servers, or use a third party CDN to deliver stuff at a reasonable rate?
    
    Everything is done in bittorrent to disguise the source to distribute reponsiblity, and to make it difficult to prosecute those who choose to break the law. You know it, why deny it?
    
    Wait. You're not big on fact in this case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Larry, 1 Oct 2012 @ 7:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, your proposed solution it to shut it down? All if it?
      
      Really? Since your brethren continue pursue lawsuits against "IP address holders" the reason this doesn't stop is because "Mike said so"?
      
      The only thing that makes any sense in what you say is in para 2. What? You can't make any money by letting the artist do it themselves" Maybe it's time to find another job. Try to pick one that provides a value to society this time.
      
      Loser.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 7:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So, your proposed solution it to shut it down? All if it?"
        
        Umm, where did you get that from?
        
        "Really? Since your brethren continue pursue lawsuits against "IP address holders" the reason this doesn't stop is because "Mike said so"? "
        
        They ain't my brethren. It's too bad the only way you can see things is "we-they". Black and white aren't the only colors in the game. Wake up!
        
        "The only thing that makes any sense in what you say is in para 2. What? You can't make any money by letting the artist do it themselves" Maybe it's time to find another job. Try to pick one that provides a value to society this time."
        
        Since my work has nothing to do with selling music, I would say "fuck you". You are truly clueless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 10:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So why be such an ass if you have no skin in the game?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 11:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know, why? You should know, ass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ANSWER ZE QUESTION !
        /lol
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 7:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Once again, Masnick tortures the truth and gets called out. You'd think after being so completely exposed as a partisan propagandist and huckster, he'd show some restraint.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 1 Oct 2012 @ 8:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "being so completely exposed as a partisan propagandist and huckster"
        
        Are you completely unaware of the concepts of irony and projection?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ophelia Millais (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 9:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Any network/software engineer worth their salt can see the technical advantages of magnet links�advantages that have nothing to do with privacy. Same goes for P2P content distribution in general. Yet you assert that the modicum of privacy offered by these technologies means they were designed to cover illegal activity "and everybody knows it."
      
      Tell me, is every technological feature which increases privacy designed to cover illegal activity, o Anonymous Coward? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, so why take advantage of these features at all? It costs you nothing to post under your real name, yet for some reason you choose to take advantage of a feature of this forum that certainly was designed for privacy...why do you do that, if not to cover your illegal activity?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, as an example, magnet links exist only as a way to avoid trackers that get shut down. They are less efficient (because they require every client to make extra inquiries to get peer listings), but they do a great job of getting rid of the most legally risky part of piracy, running a torrent tracker.
        
        A user name is not needed here, that is why I don't use it. I think this should be about ideas, and not about personality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Tim Griffiths (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 3:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        >Magnet links exist only to avoid trackers
        
        Ya there is no reason at all that you'd want to apply the same principles that bittorrent uses to share files to the bittorrent file it's self for the same reasons! it's madness that clearly has no benefit what so ever other than the one you need to confirm your views about bittorrent use.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 6:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, as an example, magnet links exist only as a way to avoid trackers that get shut down.
        
        There are quite a few public trackers right now that won't be shut down.
        
        Magnet links are much smaller than their .torrent files making them easier to deal with them. Also, since they are trackerless in case the tracker goes down they will not stop functioning. This is useful for the so called illegal trackers (whatever that means) so the content will still be up if they get shut down. But it's also useful for legitimate content.
        
        But you are determined to treat bittorrent as a technology developed for piracy (despite the fact that we have Tribler being developed with Govt granted money) so nothing will change your position. I wonder, was your father against the VCR as some tool designed for piracy too?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ophelia Millais (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You seem to understand that it's ridiculous to assume that the privacy afforded by the comment system here doesn't mean that everyone is hiding something, although some of them could be, yet you don't see how that's exactly the kind of assertion you're making about BitTorrent. You're saying that its decentralization and privacy features exist specifically to insulate people who are using the system for illegal activity. And further, you essentially argue that the only reason people would choose to use a distributed system is because they're up to no good, and no one should use such systems because they're relatively inefficient, at least from the peer's perspective.
        
        Distributed CDNs, whether P2P-based or not, aren't designed to be efficient overall; they're designed to spread the bandwidth consumption around, making peers do a little extra work in an attempt to avoid bottlenecks and single points of failure�the inherent flaws of centralized distribution. That's why it is the way it is, not because people wanted to hide their asses. And yes, decentralization is relatively inefficient for the peers, but not by much, and the source has much less burden than it would otherwise; it doesn't even need to stay connected.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Milton Freewater, 2 Oct 2012 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "A user name is not needed here, that is why I don't use it. I think this should be about ideas, and not about personality."
        
        See? You're a noob. You don't spend much time online and you don't appreciate the nuance of how Internet communications work.
        
        Your description of magnets has a few facts in it, but to paraphrase David Cronenberg, you don't understand the "flesh" of what we're talking about. You don't understand the nature of the "legal risk" or why people take it on. You got the word "illegal" from some biased source and you made a bunch of incorrect assumptions from there.
        
        I mean, yeah, maybe you're paid to post here. But even so, why would you? There are plenty of ways to make a living that better society. Why be a luddite on TechDirt?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DudeWasHere (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 5:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You make it sound like protecting private information in bitorrents is a bad thing. There are governments in the world who could monitor such downloads and identify the people (or at least machines) accessing restricted information. By making public sources of said restricted material would make the infrastructure vulnerable to attack, and place the content owners at risk. In this day and age, such things are real risks. Bitorrents are tools like anything else, and have to be designed well to work in real world situations, regardless of use.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 6:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, IP addresses are revealed. You however keep going on that an IP address is not a person, therefore in your world, it's meaningless. Why hide behind this one when you routinely "debunk" it?
      
      Same issue with HTTP downloads, FTP, [insert protocol here]. Even if you get a subpoena and find out the IP address that downloaded the file you still need to prove the address owner/holder was the one to download it and not a hacker or an user of his open wi-fi. I know, I know it's complex for your little mind but an IP is not a person regardless of the protocol being used.
      
      Why have there been moved to things like magnet links and other techniques to hide where a file comes from?
      
      You should get informed, magnet links just point the hash to the bittorrent client who will then look for peers in the DHT/PEX networks that are decentralized and don't need trackers. If you add a tracker it usually makes the initial download faster. The file comes from each and every single peer connected to that specific hash in the network. The protocol itself makes it harder to find the initial seeder (which is what you seem to be referring) if he uses super-seeding mode since the client will report it doesn't have all pieces to the other clients in the network and will upload different pieces to different clients so they'll communicate between themselves and this will optimize the overall bandwidth used so the initial seeder will need to upload just a small amount above the total size of the content in order to the swarm to develop and maintain itself. So the first seeder in this case might just be the lucky (or unlucky) guy who gets all parts first.
      
      Why use an unreliable distributed system where bandwidth is so cheap, that an artist could easily offer their own download servers, or use a third party CDN to deliver stuff at a reasonable rate?
      
      It is not unreliable. It's actually very reliable and resilient. And even attempts to destroy a swarm are mitigated by the healthy peers. The protocol itself has defensive mechanisms against attacks. The artist may offer other options indeed but a server would be expensive. Cloud storage (mainly in the form of cyberlockers) as many used to use is being viciously attacked by the MAFIAA as piracy heavens (just like bittorrent) so they aren't much of an option anymore. Bittorrent is virtually free. The artist can use their home connections to start the swarm and let it live afterwards. Take your head out of the sand, it is a very reasonable and cheap approach to distribute digital files.
      
      Everything is done in bittorrent to disguise the source to distribute reponsiblity, and to make it difficult to prosecute those who choose to break the law. You know it, why deny it?
      
      It is not, bittorrent is designed to use bandwidth efficiently. You don't seem to know it so I forgive you for your denial. An unintended result of several optimizations to the protocol was the super-seed mode that can make it pretty hard to identify the initial seeder but greatly optimizes the bandwidth usage.
      
      Wait. You're not big on fact in this case.
      
      That applies to you actually. Although it seems you didn't know how the protocol works so it's forgivable.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 9:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I know it's complex for your little mind"
        
        You may take your ad-homs and vai te foder.
        
        It's hard to imagine anyone on this site right now (except marcus) with their head further up Mike's ass. You don't even think when you type. You just spew.
        
        It's hard to imagine living in your world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 9:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You may take your ad-homs and vai te foder.
        
        Says the one that resorts to them each and every time. I admit, I'm mocking you. And you make it damn easy ;)
        
        It's hard to imagine anyone on this site right now (except marcus) with their head further up Mike's ass. You don't even think when you type. You just spew.
        
        I just explained what the bittorrent protocol is. I admit that I didn't have to think when I typed, it's pretty common knowledge for me. You just "spewed" wrong definitions and I corrected those for you. I'm not sure who you have your head up their arses but I hope it's pleasurable for you ;)
        
        It's hard to imagine living in your world.
        
        I know, must be hard to imagine living in reality when you are living in denial.
        
        As a side note, it's interesting to see a fellow Portuguese speaking (from the ad hom I'll infer you are from Brazil). It's just a pity you can't contribute to the discussion in a mature, reasonable way ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Milton Freewater, 2 Oct 2012 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You don't even think when you type. "
        
        OK, that was funny.
        
        Still, while responding to a thoughtful, informative tutorial with "you're not thinking lol" is funny ... but don't you feel like you could offer something more?
        
        This is an exciting debate and an exciting time. These protocols put an enormous library of information in front of everybody with a computer. Our species has never been this blessed.
        
        Working out how to preserve it and ensure rightsholders can still depend on getting theirs is a challenge. We'll get there but we need all the help we can get. Nonsense like "itz illegal lulz" is worth a grin but you could really be making a difference here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Milton Freewater, 2 Oct 2012 @ 10:49am
  
  Re:
  "the design of bittorrent is specific to help cover illegal activity'
  
  I have always wanted to put a TD troll on the spot with this one" You say "illegal activity." What "law" is being broken and how?
  
  I know the answer, but I'd bet money you don't.
  
  If you don't understand the basics, the nuances of a post like Mike's above are going to fly right over your head.
  
  If you ask someone named Jose his name and he says "Que?" he's not lying to you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 7:27pm

hey mick, did you read the news about the band Death Grips ? http://amour-discipline.org/zine/death-grips-stick-their-cock-in-the-eye-of-sony-music/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RobShaver (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 9:39pm

I use bittorrent ...
I use bittorrent every time I take classes from http://fxphd.com

Each term all the students have to download the class videos for each class. There's a minimum of four classes times ten weeks or 40 videos. Then there's often supplements and extra materials depending on the class.

By having all the students use bittorrent they can keep their bandwidth requirements reasonable and keep the class costs lower.

If you want to blame the technology for the all the ills then outlawing cars would save 15 or 20 thousand lives every year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 11:41pm

BitTorrent is the natural evolution of piracy protocols to date. In the early days of MP3s, you could just download any song you liked off ordinary websites. Then the copyright holders got wise. So Napster arrived adding a layer of deniability. Their centralization backfired and so Gnutella and FastTrack showed up. No centralization, so there wasn't a central repository to go after. Then Grokster got nailed. So now we have torrent files and magnet links...anything to add more deniability and more abstraction.

It always takes the labels a while to catch up, and that's the time when a piracy protocol thrives. Now that they have figured out how to go after individual seeders, everyone will probably move on to something like torrents + TOR, or torrents + a VPN.

Sure you can do "legitimate" things with it. You can do legitimate things with any technology. Would BitTorrent be a "thing" if not for piracy? Would it have even been developed if Napster still existed and hadn't been shut down? Sure BitTorrent could be even better at hiding its participants...but Napster and Kazaa and Gnutella could have also and didn't. Shawn Fanning, I am sure, had no idea his technology could have been used for piracy.

Torrents and piracy go hand in glove. The difference between an honest person and an apologist is that an apologist will go to the ends of the earth to rewrite and reinterpret history to pooh-pooh it and try to deny or minimize the relationship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 4:59am
  
  Re:
  But that's because the labels failed to turn Napster to their advantage. Instead they hounded it, its users, and its successors - which only drives innovation (and all without patents? ;) So don't conflate increased usability with piracy with a total failure of imagination and total greed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 7:01am
  
  Re:
  Ah where to start. I did debunk many of your fallacies and bogus assumptions on a comment up there. You should check them. The downfall of Napster was not the driver for bittorrent (unless you have a reliable source that makes an explicit connection). The intention of the protocol is to optimize bandwidth use. For file sharing (or piracy as you like to call it) it is one hell of a feature.
  
  I'm fairly sure yes, people will use methods to hide their activities (though TOR+torrent is proven to be very very slow). However it won't stop sharing. Nothing you did so far has done anything to stop it, instead it has increased and spreaded far.
  
  Shawn Fanning, I am sure, had no idea his technology could have been used for piracy.
  
  Actually, I believe he didn't think sharing files was wrong. As the great majority of society thinks.
  
  Torrents and piracy go hand in glove.
  
  VCR and piracy went hand in glove too...
  
  The difference between an honest person and an apologist is that an apologist will go to the ends of the earth to rewrite and reinterpret history to pooh-pooh it and try to make or maximize the relationship.
  
  I fixed the last words for you mr apologist ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2012 @ 11:50pm

A question: can any of the Techdirt regulars name a single technology that, in their opinion, does not have enough "legitimate uses" that it should be regulated for lack of them? I would be shocked.

"VX gas? There is a large hobbyist community of talented amateur nerve agent researchers who are innovating EVERY DAY!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 4:45am
  
  Re:
  Nerve agents are used in insecticides.
  
  Ever use use a can of RAID to get rid of cockroaches?
  
  Too bad they don't have a version that only works on trolls.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 5:01am
  
  Re:
  Most technologies have multiple uses, so killing them all off because of one is just plain stupid.
  
  Cops: "Look, nitroglycerin makes bombs, let's ban it and criminalise any users!"
  
  Man (as he is thrown into jail): "Hey, give me my heart medicine back..."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  You are dead set in your belief that bittorrent was made for piracy and is used for piracy despite clear evidence in contrary. Rhetoric question, mr apologist troll?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:05am

Looking up what DJ Shadow had put up for free download I tripped on this testimony on the remixes contributed to a contest he set up:

"In many cases, new life has been breathed into songs I had long-since resigned to the past, and made them fresh again. You WILL hear these mixes in future shows, and that's the strongest endorsement I can give as a DJ. From one artist to another, thank you for inspiring me."
-DJ Shadow

What an answer to "free" causing creative desertification can this be, when the response is an ocean of creative returns instead. And that's just one occurence in what started a few years back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:14am

Looking up what DJ Shadow had put up for free download I tripped on this testimony on the remixes contributed to a contest he set up:

"In many cases, new life has been breathed into songs I had long-since resigned to the past, and made them fresh again. You WILL hear these mixes in future shows, and that's the strongest endorsement I can give as a DJ. From one artist to another, thank you for inspiring me."
-DJ Shadow

What an answer to "free" causing creative desertification can this be, when the response is an ocean of creative returns instead. And that's just one occurence in what started a few years back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:39am

I think also there is a rush from the anti-copyright, "free internet" crowd to try to jam as many things into using bit torrent in an attempt to obscure it's more illegal uses. It seems to be a common refrain here on Techdirt, as Mike tries to rah-rah-rah for the home team.

In the end, it's sad what people will do to try to help those who choose to break the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:07am
  
  Re:
  I think also there is a rush from the anti-copyright, "free internet" crowd to try to jam as many things into using bit torrent in an attempt to obscure it's more illegal uses. It seems to be a common refrain here on Techdirt, as Mike tries to rah-rah-rah for the home team.
  
  You might have a point if this were just based on number of files available. But it's not. It's actual downloads.
  
  So, once again, you have no point.
  
  Don't you ever get tired of being *completely* full of shit?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:21am
  
  Re:
  It's actually sad that people like you show up every time there's a new innovation in the media sector. We will fight your ilk ever time they pop up. Prove to us that MOST use of this technology is illegal. Hard proof. The image in this article? Those are legal downloads in one day on one site. Over 850,000 of them. Can you show us how many illegal downloads were performed from torrents on that site?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 3:52am
  
  Re:
  Yep. Like the thieving accountants working for the labels. Like the drug-addled actors hooked on cocaine and heroin. Like harrassing members of the public for providing a service that isn't provided legitimately.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tor (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:49am

Externalizing costs immoral?
A few commenters seem to be of the opinion that it's somehow immoral to let others bear the cost of web traffic. Were we to apply that argument to stores, then the ones that do not provide a mail order service are immorally profiting at their customers' expense since they have externalized the transportation costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 1:27am
  
  Re: Externalizing costs immoral?
  " Were we to apply that argument to stores, then the ones that do not provide a mail order service are immorally profiting at their customers' expense since they have externalized the transportation costs."
  
  No, it's more like using your customer's home phone to take those mail orders, or perhaps to use their garage to store your inventory.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 5:03am
    
    Re: Re: Externalizing costs immoral?
    Ah, but this is with their permission. Makes all the difference. If I'm barely using my upload quota, then why should I mind sharing it to help seed some legal, useful file?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 7:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Externalizing costs immoral?
      Notice that you've PAID for that upload. So nobody is losing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 4:17am

if all the US entertainment industries had been able to buy, thereby control, the use of torrent from day one, it would have been the dogs bollocks of programs. if they are ever in the position of buying it in the future, or the next iteration of it, it will be the dogs bollocks of programs. the only reason it is so hated by the entertainment industries is because they were too mean and too stupid to see the potential of it. like everything else, they want to be given it for free then charge everyone extortionate amounts of money for using it. their own stupidity is what they try to cover up by accusing everyone who uses torrent and every use of torrent as being for infringing purposes. they know the truth but it is too hard for them to admit they were and still are wrong. that means, as with so many other things, everyone misses out. ignorance isn't always bliss. it is often the thing that holds us back too much for too long!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 9:35am

Yes, There Are Many, Many, Many Legal Uses of BitTorrent for completely unknown artists that have no associations with big distributors.

Fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 12:18pm
  
  Re:
  Thankfully. Those unknown artists are becoming more known and able to make money thanks to technologies like bittorrent and others that are enabling them to make, distribute their music and connect with their fans for very little money.
  
  Amen to that, brother ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2012 @ 2:15pm

Bittorrent is the best for Linux distros.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2014 @ 2:31pm

People who think torrents should be illegal are stupid. If they're made illegal, the companies that use them for legitimate purposes will stop and that's about it. Even if the amount of people using it did dwindle, they'd probably just switch to another method of p2p file sharing. So if you decide to go down that road, you'd have to make that new method illegal as well and continue doing so all down the road. Let's face it, copyright laws are impossible to enforce. Always have been, always will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2015 @ 12:49am

average_joe and David Lowery just hate it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]