"One of the stories I am writing is about secret muslims."
Unless someone asks "is the pope in your muslim story", there would be no way to know.
Both statements are true. The rest would be you inferring that my story is about the pope being a muslim. I didn't say it, you concluded. That isn't me lying, that is you connecting dots (perhaps incorrectly).
any link to the original lawsuit or court filings? I suspect springsteen is only listed as one of the co-plaintiffs, as a matter of course as a rights holder, and through contract, he is likely sort of attached to ASCAP.
I think the real story is that the newspaper got it wrong.
Peter, before I answer, can I ask you to please use the "reply to this comment" link, as it sorts your comments into the right place in the threaded version of discussions? thanks.
ADM likely used copyright because it is the most expedient way to get the video removed. Going to the courts and trying to get an injunction to get the video removed could lead to a protracted argument, court dates, depositions, and all sorts of other things that would take time and continue to, as they would say "injure their client's reputation" or something similar. ADM owns the video footage in question, and thus their DMCA notice is right and proper, although done for other reasons. DMCA pretty much requires prompt action by YouTube, everything else would take time.
We may not like this sort of use of DMCA, but it is within the law to do so.
You have to think about it for a second. If end users can use their internet connection with no risk of being caught (because the ISP is under no obligation to track users or help in any manner to track illegal file trading), it is essentially a court ordered license to infringe openly. At this moment, there is nothing stopping Australians from infringing to their hearts content, even to open and operate seeders and trackers from their home PCs.
If you make copyright holders push the process through court for each "violation", it could take years to even get to court. First they would have to summon the ISP, and they would have prove in a court of law that a violation took place, and that the violation was this IP, etc. Essentially, it could be a full on trial just to get the user information. That could take years by itself. Then you take that user information, and start the process over again from scratch, which again could take years. Anywhere along the way, a minor error made could derail the process and send you back to start.
How long did the Thomas and Tenenbaum cases take to make it through court? How many more years do you think they will go on before they are put to bed entirely, one way or the other?
Violations take seconds, prosecuting or even attempting to stop by injunction those violations could take years. Something isn't right at that point.
It's amazing how you promote both full disclosure for the masses AND secrecy for the rich (ie: in the case of ACTA). You're a hypocrite.
Sigh.
Where do I start?
ACTA isn't secrecy for the rich. Those are your words, not mine. ACTA (and any other treaty) can and often is negotiated in private, under security restrictions. You are just feeling this one more because it strikes closer to home. I am sure you don't have anywhere near as much interest in confidential discussions about sugar cane production or military bases in Japan, do you?
It is clear that the public, by it's actions, has already expressed what it wants, and those wants have nothing to do with respecting the rights of creators of the very content they long to have. With the concept of "snitches get stiches" I suspect more people respect their corner crack dealer than respect content producers rights.
if the government imposes full disclosure against the will of the masses
Where do you get "full disclosure" from? It isn't like your name and home address are going to appear next to every online post you make. You can still be an anonymous coward here if you like, but the concept would be that there would be enough information between techdirt and your ISP to identify you (or at least the connection used to post). That would basically put you in the position of having all your rights, all your free speech, and at the same time having to accept responsibility for that speech. That is actually the fundamentals of a free society, you can say whatever you want, but you cannot cower in the dark when you say them.
You have to remember too, the will of the masses isn't always how things are done. The will of the masses is to drive faster than the speed limit on highways, but you don't see anyone running on a platform to repeal speed limits. The will of the masses is sometimes against the better interest of the masses, so sometimes the laws aren't as the masses wish. The masses all want lower taxes (or not to pay any), yet without taxes, many of the other things we want (like roads, bridges, the rule of law, etc) are entirely based on those taxes. Only following the wishes of the masses in one direction would have horrible results, don't you think?
So while your comments are carefully crafted, you managed to try to put words in my mouth on both sides. I am not for your "full disclosure" on one side, not am I suggest that there should be secrecy for the rich.
Good try though, much better than some of your other work.
Tofu, I can't answer much of RD's comments because they are rants, not questions. He is unable to accept simple facts, let alone complex ones, so attempting to answer him is more or less like putting a stick in a bee hive and spinning it around. You only make things worse.
Example: "This is the CORNERSTONE of your masters' cases"
Since I have no masters (no slaves either), he is starting from a falsehood. How can I answer something when it starts out as a lie? What is there to answer? If he wants to know what "the industry" thinks, he should ask someone from "the industry". I am not that person.
Another example: "Now you have the GALL to come in here and take the OPPOSITE side, so you can CONTINUE to argue baseless and specious points? WTF is wrong with you? Are you just pathological? You HAVE to argue the opposite, no matter what the merits? You are unbelievable. Your credibility is DONE."
How do I answer this? I have no gall. My points are neither baseless or specious, just points that RD doesn't agree with. There is nothing wrong with me. I am not pathological. I don't have to argue the opposite, although it will always appear that way to RD. My credibility does not start and stop with RD's opinion.
I could tell RD the sky is blue, and he would call me a liar, and that the color of the sky is being dictate to me by my overlord masters of the f'kn **aa's, and so on. If he asks a reasonable question, he would get a reasonable answer. I learned long ago not to deal with people who are ranting, as they more they rant, the less likely they are listening and the more likely they are to cause you physical harm.
RD is too far away to cause physical harm, but I can see little use in giving in to his temper tantrums. When he learned to behave like a reasonable manner, and follow at least some of the social norms of this site, I will gladly answer his questions. When someone spends half of their posts putting up lies about me, calling me names, and insulting me outright, there it little left to discuss. I don't accept that from a 3 year old child, why should I accept it from an (apparently) grown man?
Think about it: If it was really a free speech issue, don't you think that groups like EFF or similar would be all over it? Wouldn't some lawyer looking for a meal ticket and 15 minutes in front of the Supreme Court be lining up to protect this obvious fair use parody?
The silence is deafening, if you know what I mean.
If I ran a VPN system at my house how does anyone know the logs are authentic. and to require everyone who runs a VPN server to log them would be ridiculous and very burdensome to society
Actually, you would want to log it, otherwise it's your personal IP address that is logged to you that is spewing all this traffic. You see, that is where responsiblity comes in, either you personally sent the traffic, or you can identify what IP sent the traffic through you. It's the reason why most people, presented with this sort of option, would choose not to provide someone else with a stealthy way to access the internet.
If I work for the ISP (or if I hacked the ISP server) and I can direct traffic from a particular server headed to a particular IP address towards me then I can spoof someone else.
If grandma has wheels, she would have been a streetcar. If you are willing to hack (break the law) to try to spoof, then more power to you. I mean, heck, I can be a multimillionaire if I only rob enough banks.
Like any business, boxee has to find a way to make money from it's service. Using Hulu videos (without permission) to create value in their service. If users go to boxee instead of going to hulu, hulu loses their chance to deal directly with the consumer and create an experience, market that experience, etc.
As an example, Hulu has certain things on their front page. Perhaps Hulu is being paid to place them there, or gets better ad revenues from certain content. Boxee is effectively denying them the chance to operate their business freely. a browser would just display the hulu site directly, and hulu would be "in control" of the experience. Boxee interferes with the experience.
What would happen if boxee became a members only site? Actually it is, because you have to register to use it. Do they at all market anything to their users? Obviously if they are going to a pay-to-play market for some content, they would be effectively marketing using Hulu's content (but not selling Hulu content). At some point in there, it is obviously against Hulu's best interests to allow that to happen.
Hulu is a private company and private website, and they should have the right to refuse access to anyone for any reason, as long as that reason is applied equally to all without discrimination.
You love calling me a liar, too bad it's just you who is a bad reader.
A browser can't do it. A plugin for a browser isn't a browser, sort of like saying your car can't go 200 MPH, and then strapping 10 rocket engines on it and saying "how about now?". Duh, add enough software, and you can probably make your laser mouse into a strobe light. I have a video player and photoshop on my machine. If I have both of them turned on at the same time, did the video player just become an image editor?
Would you use Boxee to surf the net normally? No. You use it to view videos. It is a media player, not a browser.
Ridiculous lawsuits are filed all the time.
You can call a tail a leg if you want, but your dog still can't walk on it.
James, actually, I can speak from experience in this area.
Car Rental companies are often held liable for their customers actions. From parking tickets (assigned to the car and not the driver) and speed camera tickets (similar), to cars seized by police and border customs agents for smuggling or other illegal activities, the car rental companies are held accountable for their actions. Rental car companies must effectively swear under oath that they have no knowledge of the intended uses of the cars, they must pass along fines (and often eat them when clients don't want to pay), and they often can spend months or even years to get a car out of an impound situation.
Effectively, car rental companies are found guilty until proven innocent.
In ontario right now, if you are going more than 50kms over the speed limit, your car is automatically (without trial) seized for 7 days. Car rental companies do continue to charge their clients for this time (as part of the contract), but customers from outside of the area often just leave and don't come back to reclaim the car from the impound, leaving the rental companies to do the work. The rental companies incur costs, and they can go after the end user, but because the end user is often in another jurisdiction, often another country, it is very hard to properly recoup those costs in a timely manner.
The rental car companies do have some liablity, and their only way to clear their names is to confirm the renter's information, provide a copy of the rental agreement, and claim to be an innocent party. If ISPs were held to the same standard, there would be no issue here.
I didn't day 50% of the files on torrent freak are illegal. I use torrent freak only for some quick (but somewhat out of date) stats about P2P traffic. The traffic numbers had nothing to do with torrent freak, but about p2p in general.
TRY
READING
SLOWLY
IT
HELPS.
Its a SMALL FRACTION of the total population and/or the total amount of ALL internet users.
We aren't talking number of users, we are talking traffic. I use about 30-40gig a month of traffic. One of my friends who is a big file trader (and I tut-tut him regularly about it) user about 250 gig a month. On that scale, if 1 out of 10 users is using P2P, they are still using half the traffic.
So please, can you read my statements a little more closely before going off?
PS: I still don't work for the movie or music industries. However, you are still a rude person.
IPv6 is very important towards being able to identify end users better. There are too many gateways, traffic aggregations, rotating IPs, and 101 other things which make it much harder track individual users.
When you make users have more unique IP addresses, it makes them easier to track, Yes, in some ways you can still spoof things, but bi-direction communication makes spoofing fairly useless, as you may be able to send information but not be able to receive it (as the packets would not come back to you).
it's like email headers: you can fake them all you like for spam, but there is no easy way to receive replies without providing a legit address. Spoofing is unidirectional.
Yes, you can use VPN etc, but in the long run VPN systems will likely end up being required to log their users as well, and potentially even provide them an individual IPv6 addressed for their traffic, thus removing much of the anonymous factor there as well.
The author makes some good points, but in the end it has been shown already that even companies like Google can obtain enough aggregate information about you to just about identify you individually, even without an IP address.
So to answer your question, the less that is shared and the more that is unique, the easier it is to track individual users. Like it or not, the internet right now is still in it's wild west stage, but that isn't a forever thing. online business right now are very tolerant of scammers, and are accepting loss levels that are not in keeping with what the would accept in a physical retail situation. That isn't something that will be tolerated forever, which will require methods to better identify users and track down scammers. The wild west won't last forever, you may want to remember this as a golden age of anonymous (right after the anon.penet.fi era)
It is the difference between lying and not telling all of the truth. The congressional panel would have done a better job if the followup question would have asked about NBC's direct influence over Hulu, and specifically what NBC told Hulu.
Zucker did a very good job of not lying, the answers are very carefully worded (and likely coached by a lawyer) so as not to be lies. There is just a very big black hole there that the congress members decided to ignore.
RD, please, I will correct you again. I DON'T WORK IN THE MOVIE OR MUSIC BUSINESS. I have no corporate masters, I am not getting paid, I am not scare mongering. Get over it already. You sound like a fool when you get off on that sort of thing.
I trust torrentfreak is a good enough source for you?
How much of it is illegal? Well, considering what are the most popular downloads on big torrent sites (such as Pirate Bay), it appears that most of it is illegal. I don't see unix distributions in the top 200 downloads, do you?
heck, I will give you a break. If the torrent freak numbers are right, and even 50% of traffic is p2p, and if even only 50% of p2p traffic is illegal content, you would be looking at 25% of all traffic being illegal.
I really doubt that 25% of all mail handled by the US mail is illegal material.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I am writing a story that includes the pope."
"One of the stories I am writing is about secret muslims."
Unless someone asks "is the pope in your muslim story", there would be no way to know.
Both statements are true. The rest would be you inferring that my story is about the pope being a muslim. I didn't say it, you concluded. That isn't me lying, that is you connecting dots (perhaps incorrectly).
On the post: Springsteen Pissed At ASCAP For Implying He Instigated Lawsuit Against Pub; Demands His Name Removed
I think the real story is that the newspaper got it wrong.
On the post: ADM Says Video Mocking Them Is Copyright Infringement; Abuses Copyright Law To Stifle Free Speech
Re: parody
ADM likely used copyright because it is the most expedient way to get the video removed. Going to the courts and trying to get an injunction to get the video removed could lead to a protracted argument, court dates, depositions, and all sorts of other things that would take time and continue to, as they would say "injure their client's reputation" or something similar. ADM owns the video footage in question, and thus their DMCA notice is right and proper, although done for other reasons. DMCA pretty much requires prompt action by YouTube, everything else would take time.
We may not like this sort of use of DMCA, but it is within the law to do so.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have to think about it for a second. If end users can use their internet connection with no risk of being caught (because the ISP is under no obligation to track users or help in any manner to track illegal file trading), it is essentially a court ordered license to infringe openly. At this moment, there is nothing stopping Australians from infringing to their hearts content, even to open and operate seeders and trackers from their home PCs.
If you make copyright holders push the process through court for each "violation", it could take years to even get to court. First they would have to summon the ISP, and they would have prove in a court of law that a violation took place, and that the violation was this IP, etc. Essentially, it could be a full on trial just to get the user information. That could take years by itself. Then you take that user information, and start the process over again from scratch, which again could take years. Anywhere along the way, a minor error made could derail the process and send you back to start.
How long did the Thomas and Tenenbaum cases take to make it through court? How many more years do you think they will go on before they are put to bed entirely, one way or the other?
Violations take seconds, prosecuting or even attempting to stop by injunction those violations could take years. Something isn't right at that point.
On the post: You Can't Get Rid Of Anonymity Online, Even If You Wanted To
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sigh.
Where do I start?
ACTA isn't secrecy for the rich. Those are your words, not mine. ACTA (and any other treaty) can and often is negotiated in private, under security restrictions. You are just feeling this one more because it strikes closer to home. I am sure you don't have anywhere near as much interest in confidential discussions about sugar cane production or military bases in Japan, do you?
It is clear that the public, by it's actions, has already expressed what it wants, and those wants have nothing to do with respecting the rights of creators of the very content they long to have. With the concept of "snitches get stiches" I suspect more people respect their corner crack dealer than respect content producers rights.
if the government imposes full disclosure against the will of the masses
Where do you get "full disclosure" from? It isn't like your name and home address are going to appear next to every online post you make. You can still be an anonymous coward here if you like, but the concept would be that there would be enough information between techdirt and your ISP to identify you (or at least the connection used to post). That would basically put you in the position of having all your rights, all your free speech, and at the same time having to accept responsibility for that speech. That is actually the fundamentals of a free society, you can say whatever you want, but you cannot cower in the dark when you say them.
You have to remember too, the will of the masses isn't always how things are done. The will of the masses is to drive faster than the speed limit on highways, but you don't see anyone running on a platform to repeal speed limits. The will of the masses is sometimes against the better interest of the masses, so sometimes the laws aren't as the masses wish. The masses all want lower taxes (or not to pay any), yet without taxes, many of the other things we want (like roads, bridges, the rule of law, etc) are entirely based on those taxes. Only following the wishes of the masses in one direction would have horrible results, don't you think?
So while your comments are carefully crafted, you managed to try to put words in my mouth on both sides. I am not for your "full disclosure" on one side, not am I suggest that there should be secrecy for the rich.
Good try though, much better than some of your other work.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By who's definition?
In the strictest sense, it would be a "video browser", not a web browser.
On the post: Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops
Re: Re: Re: Rebuttal x2
Example: "This is the CORNERSTONE of your masters' cases"
Since I have no masters (no slaves either), he is starting from a falsehood. How can I answer something when it starts out as a lie? What is there to answer? If he wants to know what "the industry" thinks, he should ask someone from "the industry". I am not that person.
Another example: "Now you have the GALL to come in here and take the OPPOSITE side, so you can CONTINUE to argue baseless and specious points? WTF is wrong with you? Are you just pathological? You HAVE to argue the opposite, no matter what the merits? You are unbelievable. Your credibility is DONE."
How do I answer this? I have no gall. My points are neither baseless or specious, just points that RD doesn't agree with. There is nothing wrong with me. I am not pathological. I don't have to argue the opposite, although it will always appear that way to RD. My credibility does not start and stop with RD's opinion.
I could tell RD the sky is blue, and he would call me a liar, and that the color of the sky is being dictate to me by my overlord masters of the f'kn **aa's, and so on. If he asks a reasonable question, he would get a reasonable answer. I learned long ago not to deal with people who are ranting, as they more they rant, the less likely they are listening and the more likely they are to cause you physical harm.
RD is too far away to cause physical harm, but I can see little use in giving in to his temper tantrums. When he learned to behave like a reasonable manner, and follow at least some of the social norms of this site, I will gladly answer his questions. When someone spends half of their posts putting up lies about me, calling me names, and insulting me outright, there it little left to discuss. I don't accept that from a 3 year old child, why should I accept it from an (apparently) grown man?
On the post: ADM Says Video Mocking Them Is Copyright Infringement; Abuses Copyright Law To Stifle Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: satire, parody, and criticism
The silence is deafening, if you know what I mean.
On the post: You Can't Get Rid Of Anonymity Online, Even If You Wanted To
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, you would want to log it, otherwise it's your personal IP address that is logged to you that is spewing all this traffic. You see, that is where responsiblity comes in, either you personally sent the traffic, or you can identify what IP sent the traffic through you. It's the reason why most people, presented with this sort of option, would choose not to provide someone else with a stealthy way to access the internet.
If I work for the ISP (or if I hacked the ISP server) and I can direct traffic from a particular server headed to a particular IP address towards me then I can spoof someone else.
If grandma has wheels, she would have been a streetcar. If you are willing to hack (break the law) to try to spoof, then more power to you. I mean, heck, I can be a multimillionaire if I only rob enough banks.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an example, Hulu has certain things on their front page. Perhaps Hulu is being paid to place them there, or gets better ad revenues from certain content. Boxee is effectively denying them the chance to operate their business freely. a browser would just display the hulu site directly, and hulu would be "in control" of the experience. Boxee interferes with the experience.
What would happen if boxee became a members only site? Actually it is, because you have to register to use it. Do they at all market anything to their users? Obviously if they are going to a pay-to-play market for some content, they would be effectively marketing using Hulu's content (but not selling Hulu content). At some point in there, it is obviously against Hulu's best interests to allow that to happen.
Hulu is a private company and private website, and they should have the right to refuse access to anyone for any reason, as long as that reason is applied equally to all without discrimination.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A browser can't do it. A plugin for a browser isn't a browser, sort of like saying your car can't go 200 MPH, and then strapping 10 rocket engines on it and saying "how about now?". Duh, add enough software, and you can probably make your laser mouse into a strobe light. I have a video player and photoshop on my machine. If I have both of them turned on at the same time, did the video player just become an image editor?
Would you use Boxee to surf the net normally? No. You use it to view videos. It is a media player, not a browser.
Ridiculous lawsuits are filed all the time.
You can call a tail a leg if you want, but your dog still can't walk on it.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re:
Car Rental companies are often held liable for their customers actions. From parking tickets (assigned to the car and not the driver) and speed camera tickets (similar), to cars seized by police and border customs agents for smuggling or other illegal activities, the car rental companies are held accountable for their actions. Rental car companies must effectively swear under oath that they have no knowledge of the intended uses of the cars, they must pass along fines (and often eat them when clients don't want to pay), and they often can spend months or even years to get a car out of an impound situation.
Effectively, car rental companies are found guilty until proven innocent.
In ontario right now, if you are going more than 50kms over the speed limit, your car is automatically (without trial) seized for 7 days. Car rental companies do continue to charge their clients for this time (as part of the contract), but customers from outside of the area often just leave and don't come back to reclaim the car from the impound, leaving the rental companies to do the work. The rental companies incur costs, and they can go after the end user, but because the end user is often in another jurisdiction, often another country, it is very hard to properly recoup those costs in a timely manner.
The rental car companies do have some liablity, and their only way to clear their names is to confirm the renter's information, provide a copy of the rental agreement, and claim to be an innocent party. If ISPs were held to the same standard, there would be no issue here.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
So you are telling me these guys don't exist?
You don't think that at least some packages aren't checked by bomb sniffing machines, perhaps x-ray machines, sniffed by dogs for drugs, etc?
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't day 50% of the files on torrent freak are illegal. I use torrent freak only for some quick (but somewhat out of date) stats about P2P traffic. The traffic numbers had nothing to do with torrent freak, but about p2p in general.
TRY
READING
SLOWLY
IT
HELPS.
Its a SMALL FRACTION of the total population and/or the total amount of ALL internet users.
We aren't talking number of users, we are talking traffic. I use about 30-40gig a month of traffic. One of my friends who is a big file trader (and I tut-tut him regularly about it) user about 250 gig a month. On that scale, if 1 out of 10 users is using P2P, they are still using half the traffic.
So please, can you read my statements a little more closely before going off?
PS: I still don't work for the movie or music industries. However, you are still a rude person.
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: what a ridiculous shill you are
the answer is: " "
Nobody is paying me. Get over it.
On the post: You Can't Get Rid Of Anonymity Online, Even If You Wanted To
Re: Re:
When you make users have more unique IP addresses, it makes them easier to track, Yes, in some ways you can still spoof things, but bi-direction communication makes spoofing fairly useless, as you may be able to send information but not be able to receive it (as the packets would not come back to you).
it's like email headers: you can fake them all you like for spam, but there is no easy way to receive replies without providing a legit address. Spoofing is unidirectional.
Yes, you can use VPN etc, but in the long run VPN systems will likely end up being required to log their users as well, and potentially even provide them an individual IPv6 addressed for their traffic, thus removing much of the anonymous factor there as well.
The author makes some good points, but in the end it has been shown already that even companies like Google can obtain enough aggregate information about you to just about identify you individually, even without an IP address.
So to answer your question, the less that is shared and the more that is unique, the easier it is to track individual users. Like it or not, the internet right now is still in it's wild west stage, but that isn't a forever thing. online business right now are very tolerant of scammers, and are accepting loss levels that are not in keeping with what the would accept in a physical retail situation. That isn't something that will be tolerated forever, which will require methods to better identify users and track down scammers. The wild west won't last forever, you may want to remember this as a golden age of anonymous (right after the anon.penet.fi era)
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Zucker did a very good job of not lying, the answers are very carefully worded (and likely coached by a lawyer) so as not to be lies. There is just a very big black hole there that the congress members decided to ignore.
On the post: NBC Universal Boss Jeff Zucker Lies To Congress About Boxee
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Industry Responds To iiNet Ruling By Asking For Gov't Bailout; Aussie Gov't 'Studying' It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How much P2P traffic? http://torrentfreak.com/peer-to-peer-traffic-statistics/
I trust torrentfreak is a good enough source for you?
How much of it is illegal? Well, considering what are the most popular downloads on big torrent sites (such as Pirate Bay), it appears that most of it is illegal. I don't see unix distributions in the top 200 downloads, do you?
heck, I will give you a break. If the torrent freak numbers are right, and even 50% of traffic is p2p, and if even only 50% of p2p traffic is illegal content, you would be looking at 25% of all traffic being illegal.
I really doubt that 25% of all mail handled by the US mail is illegal material.
Next >>