Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

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

Posted by Zonk on Thu Dec 27, 2007 02:31 PM
from the i-would-guess-it's-quite-a-bit-more-actually dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "According to a new report by Digital Music News, 36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire installed. Given their claim that filling an iPod legally would cost about $40,000, they're pretty sure that most of those computers are infringing upon at least a few imaginary property rights. BitTorrent shouldn't feel left out, though. BitTorrent actually uses more bandwidth, but the article suggests that this is because it is used to share larger files, like movies."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • It always amuses me (Score:4, Informative)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:33PM (#21832256)
    Haven't they heard of NNTP? [wikipedia.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Haven't they heard of NNTP?
      Yes [slashdot.org].
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

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

      • by MBGMorden (803437) on Thursday December 27 2007, @03:08PM (#21832694)
        Inefficient as in slower (because most people's uplinks are far slower than their downlinks), then yes. Inefficient as in ammount of data transferred (as you seem to be implying), then I don't see how that can possibly be the case.

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

        Now, when you combine in the fact that on Usenet a) some of the older encoding schemes must translate to 7-bit ASCII first and hence increase the size of a file by 30-40%, and b) because of missed posts you often have to download the original + a number of parity files, I don't see Usenet coming ahead on the efficiency side of things.
        • by Frnknstn (663642) on Thursday December 27 2007, @05:38PM (#21834478) Homepage
          You are forgetting something: Almost all usenet downloads take place from the NNTP server set up by the user's ISP. Each file is only transferred only once to each ISP via the Internet at large, rather than than once per user.

          Also, you mischaracterised the the other side of the argument, too: a properly running torrent was many seed, and although each seed may have less uplink bandwidth than downlink bandwidth, the network as a whole should saturate the new peer's downstream bandwidth.
      • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday December 27 2007, @03:13PM (#21832756) Homepage
        That's the upside. The down side is that everything gets pushed through every link which means more than 3TB/day. A modern design would be a cached pull system. Say you request part afba76a7b687af6b87fa6b87a6fbaf67 (hash sum), it goes to the local central, which checks local store (basicly a LRU disk cache), if not requests it from regional central, who'll again request it from the national central, who'll keep requesting it up the chain. If none of the caching servers can help, ultimately you connect to the torrent and get it from one of the seeds. Your ISP can cache it on the way out too, so you seed once and the backbone doesn't need to pull it from your seed line more than once. If the cache expires, it can be reseeded again as long as there's peers like with regular torrents. Basicly, no wasteful transfer because there's no traversal without enduser, it only passes once over a link, no expirery as long as someone is seeding. Technically, this is not really difficult it's legally the problem is. With many switching to encrypted torrents this kind of acceleration just isn't possible.

        • by phantomcircuit (938963) on Thursday December 27 2007, @03:43PM (#21833086) Homepage

          That's the upside. The down side is that everything gets pushed through every link which means more than 3TB/day.
          True

          A modern design would be a cached pull system. Say you request part afba76a7b687af6b87fa6b87a6fbaf67 (hash sum), it goes to the local central, which checks local store (basicly a LRU disk cache), if not requests it from regional central, who'll again request it from the national central, who'll keep requesting it up the chain. If none of the caching servers can help, ultimately you connect to the torrent and get it from one of the seeds. Your ISP can cache it on the way out too, so you seed once and the backbone doesn't need to pull it from your seed line more than once.
          So basically the way DNS works? (minus the torrent part, root DNS knows all)

          If the cache expires, it can be reseeded again as long as there's peers like with regular torrents.
          Why would the cache expire if the information is stored based on a hash? It cant exactly be updated now can it?

          Technically, this is not really difficult it's legally the problem is. With many switching to encrypted torrents this kind of acceleration just isn't possible.
          The problem here is that the business model is broken.


          The ISPs could save massive amounts of money on content distribution if only they could cache it all closer to the enduser. They cannot do this now because the distribution is illegal. DRM was supposed to solve this problem by making it so that anybody could download anything but only those with the correct permissions could use the content. DRM however is flawed in that it just cannot work, smart people who want the content will always prevail. Attack is vastly simpler than defense (a good offense is always better than a good defense).



          The solution is to have the sales of music go through a third party distributor (iTunes, Amazon, Napster, Rhapsody, whatever) and have the ISP distribute the actual content. The key here is that the ISPs would have to allow any third party to sell their content through the distribution network to maintain their status as common carriers. Record labels get paid, independent artists and small record labels have the same access to a massively scalable distribution network as the big guys and best of all the load on the network goes down substantially.




      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Yes and no. NNTP stands for network news transfer protocol. It has to be news. If it is not, the server very happily wipes it out. Most servers do not keep anything for more than a couple of days. After that it is gone for good (or for bad as some libel cases in the UK have proved).
    • by Hognoxious (631665) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:41PM (#21832358) Homepage Journal
      Have you heard of SHHHHHHH?
    • by rob1980 (941751) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:46PM (#21832426)
      The first rule of NNTP is that we do not talk about NNTP.
  • Installed Base (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HTH NE1 (675604) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:34PM (#21832266)

    According to a new report by Digital Music News, 36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire installed.
    I have it installed, but I don't use it. I wonder how that figures into their statistics.
  • by melted (227442) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:37PM (#21832302) Homepage
    If you count IP infringements made by software vendors. Face it, in the world where One Click patent can even exits, you're _guaranteed_ to infringe on someone's intellectual property if your code is more complicated than "Hello world". And software vendors can't guarantee non-infringement, either, because there are tens of thousands of vaguely worded patents.

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


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

      You owe me $5.
    • by servognome (738846) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:55PM (#21832532)

      Face it, in the world where One Click patent can even exits, you're _guaranteed_ to infringe on someone's intellectual property if your code is more complicated than "Hello world".
      Infringements:
      1. Hello World is a registered trademark of Servognome Corp. Any use or redistribution without the implied oral consent of Servognome is strictly prohibited
      2. Patent #45239223 - Display of the words "Hello World" on a digital device
  • thankfully (Score:5, Funny)

    by SoupGuru (723634) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:37PM (#21832312)
    Thankfully all of us that have eMule installed are downloading purely legal files.
  • by fataugie (89032) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:38PM (#21832324) Homepage
    So I guess screw innocent until proven guilty.

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

    Screw that report and the assholes who wrote it!
    • by blueg3 (192743) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:56PM (#21832538)
      Certainly you understand that statistics and expressed opinions have nothing to do with constitutional rights. They're free to make estimates and inferences all they want.
    • by Entropius (188861) on Thursday December 27 2007, @03:13PM (#21832746)
      When I was an undergrad I was downloading some Linux ISO (required for work) and meanwhile playing a game of DotA, a Warcraft 3 mod.

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

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

      WTF?
    • by DrYak (748999) on Thursday December 27 2007, @03:45PM (#21833118) Homepage

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

      Yeah, exactly.

      Attention **IA, this is my current seed list, you insensitive clod :It's either opensource software, or a couple of movie which are freely available.

      So could now please all this stupid companies stop equating "Peer 2 peer" with "Imaginary Property infringements" ?
      • by tftp (111690) on Thursday December 27 2007, @09:33PM (#21836108) Homepage
        If you have a garage full of brand new stereos in boxes and you aren't running a business yes it is suspicous and if a cop sees them he has the right to inquire

        Today the separation between working for someone and running your own business is almost gone. I can work for someone from 9 to 5, then come home and sell antique stereos (or whatever, Wii if you wish) through Ebay. There is no law against this, and only IRS should know. If a police officer sees my garage full of boxes he is welcome to ask, and even to buy. But I owe him nothing else, and I can't see him getting a search warrant only because I have a pile of merchandise. (As long as zoning requirements are met.)

  • $40,000 iPods? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by corsec67 (627446) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:38PM (#21832328) Homepage Journal
    Or people could rip songs from vinyl, tapes, or CDs that they already own. Or they could have cheap music from online sources that is cheaper than $1/track, like Amie Street [amiestreet.com].

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

      I think they calculated that figure based on the average content of a computer geek's iPod - namely, exactly 42 million copies of Wilhelmscream.mp3
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Well it says "iPod" and not what size. I did an estimate with an 80GB size. I came up with ~$17000 to fill it (20000 songs says Apple). I am guessing that most of my CDs have 12 or so songs on them. If you just use the $0.99 a song from iTunes, then it would of course be ~$20000. There is a 160GB version, so I suppose that is the $40000 they are figuring on. But, I've got a bunch of albums I've bought legally for less than $10 an album, so I don't think that it would cost me the full $40K. Worst case scenar
  • by sm62704 (957197) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:38PM (#21832332) Journal
    "36.4% of the world's computers have LimeWire installed"

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

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

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

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

    -mcgrew

    * Fuck LimeWire, Morpheus has a check box where you don't automatically share downloaded files. The RIAA can go fuck themselves. Hey guess what they are!
    • by Locklin (1074657) on Thursday December 27 2007, @03:03PM (#21832626) Homepage

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

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

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

      I'm sure there are services out there that make it easy to find, sa
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        but if I were to download a 'backup' of one of my legally purchased CDs--mind you, I'd -never- infringe on a copyright, goodness

        You just admitted that you did. It's just as illegal to download a copy of a CD that you own than it is to download a copy of a CD that you don't own. That's the way it works - when you buy a CD you buy limited rights to play that *exact CD* on your CD player. That's all. Sucks, but that's the way it is.
  • Nice title slashdot (Score:4, Informative)

    by moogied (1175879) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:40PM (#21832354)
    Jesus christ, do we have 10 year olds running the headlines now?

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

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

  • by Nimey (114278) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:41PM (#21832360) Homepage Journal
    ~36.4% of PC users are freeloaders.
  • by aldousd666 (640240) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:44PM (#21832398) Journal
    That's probably more people than have floppy drives. I personally don't even know what limewire looks like, but I do have bittorrent installed and have only used it for downloading linux distro ISO's. I don't know about you, but I'd rather put useful data on my hard drive than crappy media files that waste the space on my drive. I have some mp3's, about 3 gigs of it, ripped from my entire CD collection and stuff I burnt to a disc and then ripped from iTunes, but I can attest that I don't even think of looking at bittorrent sites or limewire, eMule, or whatever, when I want something new. Anyway I used to have the old school Napster before it was abolished, but that was the end of my IP stealing days...and I haven't even a single one of those media files, because that host died long ago. Just about when I decided to make a living by producing and selling some of my own IP, I stopped deciding that I should look for ways to steal other people's. It is possible you know not to steal shit just because you can.
  • somehow, there must be a tension of powers between shared public wealth, and private corporate wealth. there is no such mechanism to legally reflect this tension in the current world. and so all we have is the the ever increasing encroachment of corporate ownership into what should naturally be public spheres of public ownership. and so none of corporate ownership can be respected. naturally, some of it should, but not the overextended monstrosity that the corporations currently expect

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

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

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

    it is not that we shouldn't respect morality. it is that we shouldn't respect a legal system that is seriously broken, and doesn't reflect morality. current ip law is nothing more than an overextended farce
  • by flaming error (1041742) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:47PM (#21832438) Journal
    31.2% of computers infringe TCP.
    22.9% infringe UDP.

    The report doesn't mention other protocols, but as IPv6 gains ground, we're all sure to see lots more infringement.
  • by corsec67 (627446) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:50PM (#21832474) Homepage Journal
    Since the concept of intellectual property [wikipedia.org] is almost completely meaningless, the title must be about Internet Protocol [wikipedia.org], and I bet close to 99% of the worlds computers have IP, and most use it every day.

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

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

    It would be very hard to infringe on trademarks using limewire or bittorrent in any way, and the same goes for patents unless the patents cover the implementation of the software.
  • the other premise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by epine (68316) on Thursday December 27 2007, @03:47PM (#21833144)
    The premise of this argument is that no content worth having exists in the public domain, so any use of this tool must be directed toward infilching upon proprietary content.

    Half of the motivation being the Mickey Mouse copyright extension act was not just to protect Mickey's inflated infantilism, but also to keep the public domain shelf as bare as possible, so legitimate sharing doesn't cloud the wolf cries of MAFIAA, where every untaxed gratification over every untaxed wire represents a pimple-faced insurrection against the natural order bought and paid for.
  • by Marful (861873) on Thursday December 27 2007, @04:04PM (#21833374)
    Oh I know! Why don't we throw 1/3rd of the world population into jail!!!!

    Or maybe, just maybe, the IP laws as they stand now are not sufficient to meet the demand of the populace in what and how they expect content to be transfered/delivered/received.
  • by HermMunster (972336) on Thursday December 27 2007, @04:49PM (#21833904)
    Yeah, I said stolen. Those contracts they offer are nothing more than legalized thievery. Most artists don't have legal ownership of the music they perform. Each artist gets generally $.07 from each song from any album. The artists are essentially forced to enter a one sided contract in favor of the music mogals. These guys have parties that i'm sure many of you would be aghast at the bill. The music mogals had made billions of dollars off the backs of the artists.

    Don't get me wrong. These artists are not getting much money. They are essentially being ripped off of all their creative work. This has happened for decades. Once the moguls found out how to steal from the creative artists they used their power to do just that, ripped them off.

    I don't care about the music mogals. I don't care about the people that are loosing their jobs. I don't care that they can't pay their bills. I don't care that the moguls are no longer making billions. I could care less. They can go and shove it up their asses. They need to go back to the artists and give them their fair share. They need to grant each artists retroactively all their fair share of the royalties that they would have earned. It's just sad that these dimwits were allowed to get so powerful.

    How can anyone feel bad about downloading music when it is so obvious that the music moguls stole the music from the artists. Screw them all, we all should.
    • by TheLostSamurai (1051736) on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:48PM (#21832450)
      From the report [emediawire.com] linked to in the article, the data was collected when users went to a site (pcpitstop.com) and allowed their computers to be scanned so that the software could find "performance improvements" and make suggestions for their machine. Although I'm sure it was buried in the fine print of the TOS, I wonder how many people realized they were allowing this type of information to be sold to data mining and/or marketing companies.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 27 2007, @02:57PM (#21832558)
        So, 36.4% of computers of users who are dumb enough to use a site like that have Limewire installed?

        Is this like one of those sites that tells me "YOUR REGISTRY MAY BE CORRUPT!!!"... on a linux box?
      • by cgenman (325138) on Thursday December 27 2007, @03:07PM (#21832674) Homepage
        So in other words, 36.4% of all really dumb people have Limewire installed?

        Sounds about right.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Wow... that's some MAJOR selection bias. Most people I know would never run anything like that, and thus we'll never get counted. Since most only go there because they're a) stupid and b) already infected with some crap that slows down their machine, the only meaningful statistic I get from that is that the people that click yes to "free" anything (free screensavers, free porn, free download enhancers, free performance scans) quite a lot also want other free stuff. Shocking, I tell you.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            While I agree with you that the people sampled were probably not the brightest bulbs on the tree, AFAIK Limewire doesn't download anything of its own volition.

            It's probably not so much that "limewire downloaded some crap that messed up their computer" but rather that "they downloaded some crap using Limewire that messed up their computer." I believe the NRA has a catchy slogan that could be modified to fit these circumstances.
    • It was 36.4%. Or was that 36.43687286723%

      When you see B.S. like this (adding decimal places to stupid statistics), it is a signal to ignore it.

      What kills me is that it totally reminds me of project management bozos who track project progress to the decimal place. I can understand tracking it in 10% increments, but I realistically can only maybe tell people I am 20, 40, 60... percent complete. Sometimes on 25, 50, etc.

      But then there are others who can track the details so well. "Sir, we have milli
    • I have just scanned all of the computers on my corporate network. I have concluded that 0% of the computers in my office (out of 300) have LimeWire installed. I am therefore claiming that 0% of the WORLD'S computers have LimeWire installed based on my sample group. /sarcasm

      I believe this is a valid comparison as the data in question was collected when users submitted to voluntary PC scans by visiting a specific website that 99% of the worlds computer users have never heard of.
    • by LMacG (118321) on Thursday December 27 2007, @03:10PM (#21832722) Journal
      You are assuming that all of those songs need to be purchased at $1 apiece. What about the CDs I already have at home? I know that Sony lawyer said that ripping even one song is OMG theft, but I don't live on her world. What about all the stuff I downloaded from eMusic when I belonged? There was a cost, but not anything close to $1/song.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      You're applying the adjective "imaginary" to the wrong noun. Indeed, you're applying it to a noun that isn't even there. You may not have noticed, but not once have I referred to "imaginary property law" (which would contain the ambiguity you describe).

      It is the "property" that is only imaginary, because it is a non-rivalrous good with a very low marginal cost. In other words, we can both have a copy without deleting the other person's and it's cheap to make more copies. The law tries to make it rivalro
    • by tepples (727027) <slash2006@@@pineight...com> on Thursday December 27 2007, @04:57PM (#21834012) Homepage Journal

      Let's examine that claim. I can buy a used DVD from NetFlix for $5.99.
      Likewise, I can get new DVDs at Wal-Mart for that price.

      The $40,000 number divided by $5.99 means I could buy 6677 DVDs for that amount of money. If you divide the 160GB maximum capacity for an iPod by that number, that would mean that the compressed size for each movie would average 23 MB.
      But how will you get the DVDs into the iPod? In the United States, home of Slashdot, Netflix, and the dollar, ripping DVDs by breaking DVD Content Scrambling System isn't lawful. Defenses to copyright infringement are not defenses to circumvention. Universal v. Reimerdes. How much would a high-quality camcorder, a high-quality monitor, and a genlock between the two cost?