Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Media Your Rights Online

Report Says 36.4% of World's Computers Infringe on IP 331

Posted by Zonk
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • 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)

      by HTH NE1 (675604)

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

      by Animats (122034)

      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)
          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.




          • by Kjella (173770)
            I suppose it's sorta like DNS, but without the rerouting issues. A hash always translates to the same block of data, and you just go upstream towards the root until you find it (and to the torrent if you don't).

            Why would the cache expire if the information is stored based on a hash? It cant exactly be updated now can it?

            No, but space is finite. Basicly at your local ISP central you have maybe a 1U rack with 1TB for the latest TV series, movies etc. that "everybody" wants. At a larger interconnection you might throw up a storage rack of 10TB for the fairly common requests. And you may finally have a "mothership" wit

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by arivanov (12034)
        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.
      • by HTH NE1 (675604)
        Jasper: [whispering] Are they talkin' about the FTP?
        Abe: No! The NNTP. So just keep your mouth shut.
  • 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.
  • that's 36% with LIMEWIRE! There are other P2P software that isn't bittorrent also, is this based on all documented computers and did the limewire software report back home or did users say that they have it installed?
    • 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)

        by Kjella (173770)
        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.
      • by sm62704 (957197)
        So in other words, 36.4% of computers used by people dumb enough to let an unknown entity scan their hard drives have LimeWire installed.

        Funny how I'm not too surprised or shocked. That one in thee computers PERIOD have LimeWire is ludicrous; even Firefox doesn't have that kind of penetration.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Nalez (556446)
        I have no idea how they got the 36.4% number. From data on pcpitstop.com (the claimed source of the information) 1.012 percent of the computers tested by pcpitstop have had limewire installed and running (source: http://pcpitstop.com/spycheck/SWDetail.asp?fn=LimeWire.exe [pcpitstop.com] I have no idea how 36.4% of all computers, comes out of 1.012% of the sample running the product.
    • 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
  • 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Skynyrd (25155)

      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 elrous0 (869638) *
        I trademarked the slogan "Letters in that Order"®. Now you owe me $10.
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by LiquidCoooled (634315)
          I managed to patent "Now you owe me {Currency}". Now you owe me $20.

          Shit! I just had a letter from my lawyer telling me I am infringing upon a patent and owe him $25.
        • by HTH NE1 (675604)
          The phrase, "You owe me," is in my copyrighted song's lyrics and you both are engaging in unauthorized reprints of it. It's only worth $1, but I'll settle for $3000. Mind you, if you go up against me in court and lose, you each could end up statutorily owing me $200,000.
    • 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
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Sorry, I've got Patent #45239222 - Display of the words "Patent #45239223" 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.
  • That's It? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cronin1024 (800363)
    It's hard to believe that only 1/3 of computers engage in copyright infringement. Perhaps most of those 2/3 belong to business or education, but I would be hard-pressed to find someone that hasn't borrowed a copy of MS Office or copied a song from a friend.
    • by PPH (736903) on Thursday December 27, 2007 @03:34PM (#21832954)
      The other 2/3 are still waiting for Vista to boot. Or copy one CD.


      (Ducking and running from the inevitable Troll mod points.)

    • by Chysn (898420)
      > It's hard to believe that only 1/3 of computers engage in copyright infringement. Perhaps most of those 2/3 belong to business or education, but I
      > would be hard-pressed to find someone that hasn't borrowed a copy of MS Office or copied a song from a friend.

      The headline is ridiculously bad, of course. The editors apparently can't form a mental Venn Diagram before publishing.
  • 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?
      • Actually many Universities consider downloading above a certain speed download abuse, they don't care what you are downloading at all.
    • by RonnyJ (651856)
      So where does the report say that your BitTorrent use is automatically illegal?

      Now, that 36.4% figure of computers with LimeWire installed has been turned into the title of 'Report Says 36.4% of World's Computers Infringe on IP'. Shouldn't you be angry at that instead?
    • 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" ?
  • $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?
    • by LWATCDR (28044)
      Not to mention TV Shows, Movies, Pictures, Videos of the family, Podcasts....
      Really there is a lot of media that is very cheap and or free that you can use to fill an IPod.

    • "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)

      by honestmonkey (819408)
      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
    • I'm fond of video game song remixes myself, for a number of reasons--I've most of my pathetic old 4gb iPod filled with much of the contents of remix.overclocked.org, and the rest filled with things I own reasonably. However, I'd be glad to sell my old iPod to 'em for $40k. I could use an upgrade. And a new car. And a couple classes at the local university. And maybe a nice dinner out. And a new computer....
    • I've seen a lot of people over the years on Slashdot complain about the size of iPods not being big enough or boasting of filling them. How many people do you know that spend several grand a year on music? How many have amassed a 10,000+ song collection before 21, I've seen people boast of 40,000 or more song collections? I've known a few fanatics that did that or more even back in the 70s but they were rare and now they seem to be commonplace at the same time sales are consistently dropping. I really doubt
  • 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.
      • by sm62704 (957197)
        Yes, they can and do. But having your FANS distribute your music adds value to it for the fans themselves.

        Thanks for adding those links though, I'm sure a lot of slashdotters don't even know there IS free, legal music.
    • 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
      • by sm62704 (957197)
        I mostly agree with your post.

        However, as long as this walks hand in hand with rampant piracy, they will always find it a wise move to suppress it

        I think it's more like they will always have an EXCUSE to repress it. Piracy sells product. Examples are Photoshop; who can afford that? And about any product Microsoft has ever made. "Piracy" and legal P2P does and can help RIAA artists as well as indiies; there's no magic that makes free samples work for indies but not for RIAA members. It's just that the RIAA l
    • 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.

      Interesting... the original Napster was required to implement filtering software, which far from perfect, did remove a great deal of the major label music while allowing the independent music to remain. Why was it not successful? Why did its usage fall to zero?

      If LimeWire's "real reason for existance [sic]" is for "independant [sic] artists to get their music out", how many indie artists have exploded in popularity thanks to LimeWire? What percentage of LimeWire traffic is indie? I'm sure the percenta

      • by sm62704 (957197)
        If a single indie artist has sold a single CD because a single music lover found it with LimeWire, then it isn't a failure. I know a lot of independant musicians, everybody has CDs these days. Most of them get sold at shows, any that get sold elsewhere is just icing on the cake.

        You don't need to be a megastar to be sucessful. That's no different from any other profession; if you love your work and it keeps the wolf from the door, you're far more successful than someone who makes a gazillion dollars a year w
  • 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.
  • TiVoToGo can easily fill a video iPod with perfectly legal recordings transfered from a TiVo for no additional cost beyond the TiVo setup and a copy of the TiVo Desktop Plus package. You can save a little money by not buying the Plus package if you already have software that can do the transcoding for you. Podcasts, etc, can cost nothing, as well...
  • 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.
    • I am pretty much the same, I have uTorrent for Open Office, updates to LOTRO, etc - not for grabbing the pap-du-jour. But I have a bit more music on my HDD, like well over 100gb now. As soon as I get a new CD (usually from psyshop.com) I rip it as wav and if I want it on my iPod convert it to ACC.

      Back in the days I had napster, used it to find old 80's stuff (12" mixes") you cannot buy anymore.

      Frankly I would rather pay good money for what I consider great independent music than listen to/buy/"pirate" the c
  • 34% of the world's computers have limewire? I think they have inflated this quite a bit. 1 or 2 percent maybe.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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 circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquar ... m ['l.c' in gap]> on Thursday December 27, 2007 @02:45PM (#21832412) Homepage Journal
    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
  • The math isn't very hard. It may not be an answer you want to hear, but it seems like a legit estimate to me.

    Now, it's true that there are plenty of great bands that distribute their music for free. But given that the going rate is $.99/song and given that most of the most commercial bands want to make money and given that people seem to like the more commercial bands, I think it's a fair estimate.

    Still, if I were making the estimate I would do something like say, "Assuming that people only devote half
  • 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.
  • How is it possible that the number is that low? I would guess that even the computers of IP lawyers infringe on some IP.
  • 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.
  • My iPod has 3489 songs on it, that's 19.49 gigs, which means about 5.5 megs per song. Until they come out with a 250 gig iPod, I disagree that it would cost $40,000 to fill one.
  • ZONK puts up a submittal and gives credit, instead of taking it...? How is that so?
  • ...Especially since the law (in EU-Countries) now require the ISP to keep all data-traffic logged for up to 1 year minimum, some countries 2 - year minimum. Gawd - I cant even imagine the harddisk space for that, but yes - 2008 will therefor be a very interesting year. Who do ya trust?
  • I went to a movie theatre this weekend and an interesting thought occured to me: Would people who download copyrighted works feel guilty about sneaking into a theatre to watch a movie? You're not physically taking anything, and the cost to project the movie would cost the theatre the same regardless of whether you were there or not.
  • "[I]maginary property rights"? Wow, I guess in addition to being bad editors, Slashdot's paid staff also don't know the current state of the law.

    I don't care whether you agree or disagree with those laws, the current state of the law makes a mockery of any argument that IP rights are "imaginery." Score another one for Slashdot as propaganda tool.
    • People have done suprising things with the square root of -1 [wikipedia.org], doesn't make it any more real :)
    • I don't care whether you agree or disagree with those laws, the current state of the law makes a mockery of any argument that IP rights are "imaginery." Score another one for Slashdot as propaganda tool.

      So you are saying that a unique string of words (for example) is physical property?
    • 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
  • Nice to know there's no bias... (I know, I know, with a 5-digit UID I should know better.) Guys, intellectual property is real, there's a body of law defining it going back almost three full centuries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne [wikipedia.org]). Intellectual property is what powers the GNU licenses, etc. Intellectual property represents ~5% of the GDP of the United States (think our economy is in poor shape at the moment? Cut out IP related commerce and see where we're at -- if you still have a job
    • by LWATCDR (28044)
      Yep GNU/FSF use the very same laws as the RIAA and MPAA but let's not ruin a good rant with truth and logic.
  • I get all my IP from DHCP for free, catch me if you can!!
  • filling an iPod legally would cost about $40,000

    What they don't tell you is that the $40K is spent in bandwidth, CPU and quaaludes while you wait for iTunes to download "missing album artwork" for 160 GB worth of mixed and independent music (for which there is no artwork to download). God only knows how much you spend waiting for it to scan your files for gap-less playback...
  • From TFA:

    LimeWire happens to be 100 percent compatible with the most popular media player on the planet.

    Uh, as is pretty much ANY bittorrent client, or things like Acquisition, BearShare(still around?). Don't credit LimeWire for doing something that they all do, and don't try to imply that iPods are some sort of magical closed music box. Plus, since Limewire and the likes can host ANY computer file, I would suggest that the content of any given Limewire connection is no where near 100% compatible with

  • 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 kriss (4837)
    It strikes me as odd that they single out Limewire, since Gnutella (which Limewire runs) really isn't that prevalent in the first place and other User Agents are way, way more prevalent than Limewire. Depending on where in the world you happen to be situated, BitTorrent, eDonkey, Ares or Winny/Winmx/Perfect Dark would be the preferred poison, both in terms of hosts and bandwidth consumed.

    Which is not to say that there isn't a lot of gnutella out there, but 1/3 of all (consumer) hosts is sheer hogwash. No wa
  • 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.
  • Frankly, Limewire should sue RIAA for "slander"...

    BULLSHIT #1 - I am sorry, there is no way I am buying the fact that 34% of computers have "Limewire". Why? Because...

    - the computers I use at work DO NOT.
    - none of my machines have it (so that's several more)
    - very few of my friends have Limewire installed
    - of those few acquaintances who do download files, none that I know of use Limewire (oh, and if RIAA thinks they're losing billions, those individuals also have little free
  • 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.

If it's worth hacking on well, it's worth hacking on for money.

Working...