Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Media Music

Video and Software Downloads Overtaking Music 234

Posted by michael from the leaching-for-fun-and-profit dept.
Trigun writes "The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is reporting that movie and software downloads have outpaced music downloads. Music accounted for 48.6 percent of files shared online, compared with 62.5 percent in 2002, according to a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The article says that 1 in 4 internet users have downloaded at least one movie, and attributes the proliferation to access to broadband. Maybe we've just downloaded all the good music already?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Video and Software Downloads Overtaking Music More

Video and Software Downloads Overtaking Music

Comments Filter:

  • Global coverage (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Friday July 09, 2004 @05:54PM (#9657256) Journal
    Across the OECD's 30 industrialized member countries, music accounted for 48.6 percent of files shared online, compared with 62.5 percent in 2002, according to excerpts of the report seen by The Associated Press.
    Interesting. I wonder if the fact that Hollywood tends to distribute movies in the US first--coupled with the storm of global entertainment coverage--contributes to this? If I lived in Germany, for example, awaiting the release of Spider-Man 2 [imdb.com] I might want to see what all the hype was about and download the movie.

    • Re:Global coverage (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dark Kenshin ( 764678 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:04PM (#9657346) Journal
      Actually, I think this is due to the fact that the recent quality of music being released isn't that high. This gives movies and programs more focus for people to spend time downloading.

      But that's just my opinion, so whatever ...

    • Re:Global coverage (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WatertonMan ( 550706 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:09PM (#9657399)

      I honestly wonder how they calculate this? I daresay that the majority of people using P2P networks share their music shares which probably are around 1000 files or more. I just have a hard time seeing that most are sharing that many movies and pieces of software. i.e. those sharing movies almost certainly are also sharing songs.

      What I suspect they did is just scanned for not music files. They then end up with all these small files - sometimes the content of you system directory - that dumbnits share or people trying to get a certain GB shared limit share. Yet if they count each .ini file and other such thing as a different software file, of course the number of files will outnumber music. But is that a real accurate count of movies and software shared?

      i.e. shouldn't they count software packages and movies shared rather than *files* shared?

      Perhaps they aren't making this mistake. But given their statistics something just smells fishy. I'd like to see their methadology.

      • Re:Global coverage (Score:4, Insightful)

        by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:27PM (#9657515)
        Man I so agree. The numbers aren't that obvious. You download a movie, it's 600 megs. It messed up at 300 megs. You recontinued to P2P session, does that count as 2 files now?

        It's goes on and on. I can't stand research like this anymore. They are just giving organizations like RIAA fuel to sue by miscalculating left and right.

      • That's a good point, considering the article addresses the number of files downloaded. I wonder what things would look like if the numbers reflected the size of the files downloaded.

        Also, if they did scan specifically for movies, software, etc, I wonder how porn messes things up. I mean, seriously, how many movie movies have you downloaded compared to how many porno clips/movies?

        It's too bad there isn't a better discussion of the methodolgy in the article.
      • ....more like 7000 files, under music alone
    • I have a seriously difficult time believing the numbers generated by the OECD on the subject of western young people's downloading pop music and comic book movies.

      These people are serious stuffed shirt economists. I don't think that they have the methodogy or the skills to track the semi-legit world of P2P and the various secretive subcultures asssociated with warez and big time file sharing. I suspect that they are simply repeating highly questionable numbers obtained from dubious sources that have

  • Bah (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 09, 2004 @05:55PM (#9657260)
    They probably calculated it by megabytes.

  • its faster.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cRueLio ( 679516 ) <cruelio.msn@com> on Friday July 09, 2004 @05:56PM (#9657271) Homepage Journal
    its faster and easier for me to DL a movie off of IRC than to haul my ass to the movie theatre, stand in line, and sit cramped in a shitty chair with no elbow room next to some annoying little kids. i just dl from irc, burn on a cdrw (vcd/svcd) pop it in the vcd player and watch it.

    • Re:its faster.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vxvxvxvx ( 745287 )

      Sure, but when you go to a movie theater

      • The screen doesn't shake
      • The audio doesn't remind you of AM talk
      • You can actually see who is talking rather than "the white blob"
      • Your girlfriend doesn't leave 10 minutes in after calling you a loser

      All in all, I'd go to the theater.

      • Try downloading a telesync or KVCD or DVD-RIP then. The picture quality of some is pretty awesome. Camgrabs are to be stayed away from

        At least you don't have to deal with ringing phones, gumwads and overly tall people front of you.

        Try leaving a theater 10 mins into a chickflick with the girlfriend all wrapped up in it.

        Love the immersive experience of a theater though

      • Re:its faster.. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jefe7777 ( 411081 )
        i've downloaded my share of dvd rips, so problems 1,2 & 3 are non-existent in those cases. i won't watch cams for the reasons you outlined.

        still, the cinema is an enjoyable experience, imo.

        if it didn't cost nearly $10 a ticket and $4 for a box of candy, I'd probably go more often.
    • Or you could be patient and rent the DVD when it comes out. If the McDonald's DVD rental thing takes off that would only cost $1 per day even for a new release (currently, that's the only ones they're stocked with).
    • And and and ... you can make popcorn while burning the cdrw!

      Real butter, too.

    • Re:its faster.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by neonstz ( 79215 ) * on Friday July 09, 2004 @07:58PM (#9658052) Homepage
      I saw Spider-Man 2 with 6 friends yesterday. Ordeded the tickets online two days in advance on the internet (paid with VISA). I didn't have to stand in line, I just went straight to the counter to pick up the tickets 5 minutes before the movie started. Before the movie a few of us got something to eat, and after the movie we went out to have a couple of beers/coke. Watching a movie at the cinema isn't just the movie, it's also about getting out and doing stuff with friends.
      • Indeed, that's the point: it's an experience rather than just an evening at home in front of a (comparatively) tiny screen and stereo. One of the last times I went to the cinema - there are only two screens here with a very limited choice so we don't go very often - it was a great laugh, not because of the film (which was very good, but not a comedy) but because of a certain incident...

        We'd gone to see "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"; the cinema was packed and the five of us got settled, munchies and dri

    • Re:its faster.. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mazem ( 789015 )
      That's especially true on college networks. Wide selection of good movies + ridiculously fast download speeds + no car = pirates.

  • Blame ' pirates ' (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @05:56PM (#9657272) Homepage Journal
    That way we can have more restrictive legislation.

  • Its the RIAAs secret plan (Score:5, Funny)

    by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @05:56PM (#9657273)
    Keep coming out with music so shitty noone wants to download it! And its working already!

    On a serious note- do they separate legal from illegal downloads? Lots of movies/software is legal to download.
    • On a serious note- do they separate legal from illegal downloads? Lots of movies/software is legal to download.

      Seriously. Because if they're measuring bytes transfered, I've downloaded much more legal software (Linux ISOs) from bittorrent than I've downloaded music from anywhere in quite a long time.

  • What do they call movies (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mik3D ( 792355 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @05:57PM (#9657274) Journal
    Sure if you include Quicktime trailers, and short films. But I seriously doubt 1 in 4 have downloaded a feature film... cause guess what, no where near 1 in 4 users has broadband
    • A Full Feature Movie is around .. let's say .. ~500 megs. (yes, it can be bigger and smaller.)

      A full length song is around .. hmm .. ~5 megs. (again, variance possible.)

      That means, everytime a Movie is downloaded, the equivalent of 100 songs would be required to make up for that bandwidth usage.

      So, basically, I'm saying per copyright violation (or not sometimes), that music is far more highly pirated.

    • market penetration (Score:2, Informative)

      by jpnews ( 647965 )
      "...no where near 1 in 4 users has broadband."

      Broadband market penetration in the U.S. is over 40%.
      • Don't forget about AOL 9.0 Optimized. You can surf up the 5 times faster at no additional charge.

  • Of course... (Score:4, Funny)

    by UnixRawks ( 705739 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @05:57PM (#9657275) Journal
    Pr0n baby pr0n. It's much better than pr0ngroove mp3's.

    • Re:Of course... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Mind Booster Noori ( 772408 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:03PM (#9657336) Homepage
      I don't really know what was your intention when you posted this, but I've seen this moderated as Score:0 and Score:2...

      You have a point here: probably the most kind of downloaded "movies" (which I suppose they call to everything with certain extensions, like .avi, .mpeg, ...) is porn, and with the expansion of p2p file-sharing networks and broadband, more and more people probably download porn stuff there, I even imagine lot's of teens using p2p software only for that purpose...

  • Same old story (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just another round of MP/RI-AA trying to make the money they're used to. Trying to push for government regulation, infringing on our rights as citizens.

    All empires crumble, why won't they accept it?
    • infringing on our rights as citizens

      Downloading stuff is not a right. It's a privilege.

      • Re:Same old story (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Trespass ( 225077 )
        infringing on our rights as citizens

        Downloading stuff is not a right. It's a privilege.

        It's neither. It's a mechanism. The map is not the territory.
    • " Just another round of MP/RI-AA trying to make the money they're used to.

      And it's working. RIAA: legal threats, suing users and advertising it, ad campaigns castigating typical consumers, criminalizing legislation, and falling markets. MPAA, relative to the RIAA keeping very quiet, a billion dollar month. Correlation isn't causation true, but it certainly merits a look.

  • Maybe if by size... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Xshare ( 762241 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @05:59PM (#9657293) Homepage
    Are they counting by size of file? Or maybe they are including all the .r00, .r01, .r02 files as SEPERATE files, but I don't see this as completely right.

  • RIAA spin (Score:5, Insightful)

    by carlos_benj ( 140796 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @05:59PM (#9657297) Journal
    Great. I'm sure RIAA will see this as vindication of their sue the customer policies. "See, they've moved on to other media since we started..."

  • Surprise, surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavis AT ubasics DOT com> on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:00PM (#9657303) Homepage Journal
    What the RIAA is doing is having a chilling effect on online music trading, like it or not. I don't think the MPAA will have any recourse but to pursue the same tactics, but with much larger penalties.

    It would be nice to see the full stats, though, to see if music has plateaued (as would be expected) while movies climb as broadband proliferates.
    br. -Adam
    • What the RIAA is doing is having a chilling effect on online music trading, like it or not.
      Of course is having: lot's of people (including me) are buying LESS CD's because some of them are with copy protections that doesn't let people play them on their CD players.

      Wow, nice move.

    • "What the RIAA is doing is having a chilling effect on online music trading, like it or not. I don't think the MPAA will have any recourse but to pursue the same tactics, but with much larger penalties."

      Only partially correct. I believe it is having a chilling effect (maybe) on trading of music produced by RIAA members or that would otherwise get you in trouble with the RIAA if caught.

      Conversely, in some areas, such as ( to use a rather geeky example ) anime and video game soundtracks, music is easily fo
    • Or they could employ other tactics that the RIAA totally missed the boat on, such as legal downloads for a fee. If they start doing things like this _now_ then lots of people will start using these kinds of services and get used to it. Especially since broadband is growing, meaning so will their potential audience.
      I'd be interested to see if the MPAA have the sense to try legal downloads out, and what effect it has on the problem of illegal online distribution.
      Surely it makes sense to exaust your options be
  • So, are they talking about the total number of files swapped or the total size of them? I suspect the latter, and in that case it's no big surprise: One ripped movie shared - ~700 MB. One ripped CD shared - 70 MB.

  • MPAA not exactly impartial (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NachoDaddy ( 696255 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:01PM (#9657314)
    A separate global study published Thursday by the Motion Pictures Association found that about one in four Internet users had already downloaded a movie. Most said they would pirate more if they took less time to download.

    The problem is right there.

  • oh the humanity! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kgarcia ( 93122 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:01PM (#9657315) Homepage
    *sigh* So, one in four internet users worldwide have downloaded movies online.

    oh wait, no it was only in Eight Countires...

    oh, and only broadband users were polled.

    ooh! and I almost forgot, of those that answered, one in four said they had downloaded at least one (YES, ONE) movie...

    nothing to see here... just FUD and paranoia...

  • SOFTWARE downloads? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by grm_wnr ( 781219 )
    Video and software downloads? Looks we're back to the roots here.

    From the article:

    experts say the vast majority of file swaps are still unauthorized.


    Well, isn't that a defining feature of file swaps? Swapping copyrighted files (as opposed to just downloading them, which can be legal or illegal) has always been illegal.

  • Sales down because of bad customers or bad music? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mroch ( 715318 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:02PM (#9657325)
    In my opinion, if CD sales are in fact down (hard to tell), it's due to the lack of good music rather than file sharing. I don't buy CDs anymore, but that's not because I can download everything. It's because everything out now sucks. Like the post said, maybe we have all the good music already... If the record companies spent their money making really good music like they used to, rather than their new tactic of suing their customers, I'm sure CD sales would go back up.

  • Music down by volume or percentage? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DdJ ( 10790 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:06PM (#9657359) Homepage Journal
    Is music swapping down by actual volume, or just by percentage? That is, are people swapping less music, or did video/software swapping just grow faster than music swapping did?

    If music swapping is actually down, could it be because there are viable legit music download services now? I know I've bought multiple albums from both iTMS and Audi Lunchbox myself...

  • I download videos... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ejaw5 ( 570071 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:07PM (#9657370)
    fansub Anime! Find a good one like Naruto and Full Metal Alchemist (although FMA recently got licensed) and you're set.

    Better than the Primetime crap that comes on broadcast tv...

  • This is jacked in so many ways (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Unnngh! ( 731758 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:08PM (#9657389)
    Seriously, this is the most poorly written article I have ever read. Check out these gems:

    Video accounted for 27 percent, up from 25.2 percent, the study will say.

    So, movie downloads didn't really increase much.

    The OECD report does not give separate numbers for pirated downloads and those that do not infringe copyright

    I'm not even going to start on this one.

    The biggest growth in downloading last year was in "other files" - neither music nor film - which almost doubled their share to about a quarter of all downloads. The category includes software and pornography, but the report gives no breakdown between the two.

    Basically, they're saying they have a lot of data and it seems to indicate something, but they can't really say what, so they just threw out some numbers. Nice work, OECD.

  • I really wonder about acuracy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Omega1045 ( 584264 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:10PM (#9657407)
    With all of the various companies/qualities/methods to connect, I really wonder about the quality of such a survey. I would seem to me that these numbers seem rediculous. When I think of all the non-nerd (non-broadband) people I know, I don't think one of them has ever downloaded a movie.

  • Decline of Morals (Score:2, Insightful)

    by feilkin ( 790260 )
    Personally, I think it all can be attributed to a visible decline in society's moral standards. When music first became availible online, most people did not hesitate to download it because for the most part, it is guilt and worry free. Until there is some sort of legal safeguard put in place that will cause people to think about voliating copyrights, the numbers of people downloading will continue to rise. In real life, people will think twice before stealing from a store because there is a known punishme
  • I wonder what happens to these numbers if you include iTunes Music Store and other legal music purchases. These services have been pretty successful. Maybe this report adds to a case for implementing slick infoware from which to download media at reasonable prices. Current video and software on demand is nowhere near as inexpensive and well-put-together as the music on demand.

  • 1 in 4 internet users? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PineHall ( 206441 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:11PM (#9657418)
    Maybe I am not in the know, but I don't know a single person that has downloaded a movie. And considering the majority of Americans have dialup, I find this hard to believe. (I can't say about other countries, but I suspect for most countries that holds true.) It would take a long time on dialup to download a movie. It just does not make sense.

  • I wonder.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RyLaN ( 608672 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:13PM (#9657432)
    I wonder if they're measuring traffic from Debian's apt mirrors, RedHat's up2date, Gentoo's emerge... I know that just between the 4 Debian systems I run there can be anywhere from 100-300 megabytes of updates per week. Granted, one is stable, two are testing and one is unstable. But still, I can't think of a week that I've *ever* downloaded 300 megs of music. Most software packages are much, much larger than even an entire album, so this doesn't surprise me at all.

  • PORN (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm sure Porn accounts for atleast half of the video downloads on the Internet. Or maybe 75%? Who knows.

    I do know that it accounts for about 90% of my video downloads.
  • Is some figures that would indicate whether there has been a de-emphasizing, either in pure numbers or in percentage of overall pirate traffic, of music piracy corresponding with the rise of pay-to-download music services such as the iTunes Music Store or Napster2...

  • Downloads (Score:3, Informative)

    by locarecords.com ( 601843 ) <david&locarecords,com> on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:19PM (#9657464) Homepage Journal
    This is propaganda by the movie industry - plain and simple. Expect some legislation, hard words from politicians and poor starving movie execs to start bleating on about how hard their lives and the company profits are. This is the first salvo in a public relations drive that softens up the public ready for DRM for the movie masses.

    No doubt some high profile ridiculous case will be discovered of a student with a trillion dollars in film copies in his/her bedroom causing the entire movie industry to fail. We've seen it before in music and we'll no doubt see the same arguments and PR tactics mobilised again to get legislation passed to *save* the industry.

    It is depressing but it seems to work everytime. I only hope that people start to wake up and take a stand before its too late and the corporations have it all locked down exactly how they want it...

  • The article doesn't explain enough about how they came up with their figures.

    As I see it, the difference is that more and more music trading has been pushed underground on encrypted networks and the likes, whereas you can still Google up movie and software torrents left and right. By design, even if you're part of many of the music sharing networks, you can't tell how many others are around, and can't get raw index lists of files to count.

    If they're counting the people caught, the above still holds. Music

  • Or is it a coincidence that record downloaded coincides with record ticket and DVD sales.?

  • funny thing is.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by thegoogler ( 792786 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:21PM (#9657485)
    my MOTHER got me started on downloading movies, she said "o is that new denzel washington movie, ya the the man on fire one out yet?" and i said no. so then she said "well i one of my friends said there kids are downloading movies, you have whatchamacallit broadband couldnt you do that" she pestered me untill i burned her a vcd. good job mom. set an example, on how to GET ME IN JAIL!
  • For one, they didn't exactly verify the types of movies downloaded, whether the copies were incomplete/corrupted, or whether said movies were correctly titled.

    As far as I know, people looking for a good DVD rip or screener will download multiple copies. Also, they'll have to download multiple copies if they find that copy of Spider-Man 2 turns out to be a fake.
  • I don't have a TV so if I want to watch a TV I download it. The majority of TV never comes out on DVD and if it does it sure as hell doesn't come out the same week the show aired.
  • I find this difficult to believe. It means that just about everyone with broadband has downloaded movies. I guess I'm just a stick-in-the-mud but I haven't and no one I have asked has either.

    I think they are pushing the stats to make the situation look worse than it is. By a LOT.

    Not that I like people stealing movies, cause I don't. I doubt if any person in a creative art that can be ripped off is much in favor of having their work used and not compensate them for it. Not if they make a living that way.

  • Interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mace_15 ( 578716 )
    So I guess there must be a correlation between amount of downloads and the record takings at the box office [slashdot.org] recently? Quick, let's make Hollywood some more money!

  • From the article: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kozar_The_Malignant ( 738483 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:43PM (#9657615)
    The OECD report does not give separate numbers for pirated downloads and those that do not infringe copyright. Despite a growing number of paid-for services like Apple's music site iTunes, however, experts say the vast majority of file swaps are still unauthorized.

    The biggest growth in downloading last year was in "other files" - neither music nor film - which almost doubled their share to about a quarter of all downloads. The category includes software and pornography, but the report gives no breakdown between the two.
    So, no breakdown of how much is actually illegal, just "experts say." I wonder how much of "other files" is accounted for by bloated Microsoft critical updates, service releases and patches? How much is tasteful internet erotica? How about digital video of my daughter's college graduation sent to relatives?
    • So, no breakdown of how much is actually illegal, just "experts say." I wonder how much of "other files" is accounted for by bloated Microsoft critical updates, service releases and patches? How much is tasteful internet erotica? How about digital video of my daughter's college graduation sent to relatives?

      None of that exists!! The Internet is only used for illegal purposes! Terrorists use it, and now these illegal downloaders! Maybe they're economic terrorists by ruining the profits of the movie studi
  • It's just a matter of time that DVD capacities will reach the stratosphere, far more space than required by a movie. Therefore why not be able to buy a massive assortment of music all written on the same disk when you go to buy a movie? The store would have a computer where you select a movie or two as well as humungous music collection. You simply select what you want and a disk is created while you wait or for later pick up.

    You save all the time you need to wait for downloading. You are assured of the qu
  • I got tired of movies turning out to be yet another copy of "Little Nicky" - I swear, *THAT* has to be the most pirated movie of all time. I thought I was getting 5 other full length feature films, but nooOOoo.. I was getting more copies of "Little Nicky."
    Adam Sandler would be pissed off if he knew how many times that movie has been grabbed off the net.

    And porno flicks? Bah. Every 'effin keyword they can think of, they'll use to describe a stupid short clip promoting some website.

    I went old school - getti

  • Seattle? who do we know there? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rbird76 ( 688731 ) on Friday July 09, 2004 @06:54PM (#9657689)
    I wouldn't doubt that there is illegal uploading/downloading going on, but I'd have a hard time trust any of the **AAs as unbiased sources...

    While the SPI has a good reputation (I think) I can help but wonder if this article might have something to do with a little software company in Washington who has a deep and abiding interest in software- and hardware-based DRM schemes. Hyping the threat to companies from "software terrorists" is a prerequisite for the kind of digital rights infringement that Microsoft and other want to sell the public and content providers.

    This doesn't mean that copying isn't happening, just that someone nearby has an incentive to make the problem appear larger than it is.

  • If I go to a website and get a torrent (or if I go to an IRC channel, or even a usenet server) and download a DVD rip / telesync movie, and then I drive down to a theater, pay my $7-10 and never walk through the front door with my ticket, can my subsequent single viewing of the same movie be construed as "fair use"? Can that be the same "time shifting" that's legal for TV?

    Say I've got an 8 month old baby girl, and I want to watch movies at home with my wife after our daughter goes to sleep, would the RIAA

  • Blame broadband? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Friday July 09, 2004 @07:11PM (#9657811)
    Broadband definitely makes it easier to download large amounts of data... but when I recall my own history, I was downloading a heluvalot more music in the days when 56 kbps modems first appeared. Back then it was an exploration of all the good music that's out there and that I had never heard before. Suddenly it all became available, waiting only 15 minutes or so for a download. For years I have felt that I have all the 'classics' in my private MP3 collection, and I don't often seek new music. When it comes to mainstream pop I certainly have 'heard it all before' and crave nothing.

    So if "the industry" doesn't produce any new music that is worth craving, people don't download or buy it.
  • These "USA today" brand statistics really need to stop being propogated on slashdot. These numbers obviously consist of skewed garbage. I might be more specific, but how about a link to the actual report poster?

    1 out of 4 people reading this post have downloaded at least 350kb of non-mp3 data over the past 15min!
  • What I don't understand about all of this is how all these piracy apologists here justify downloading by claiming "it's ok because it is open source". It is immoral to copy someone else's work and this tecnical programmer's babble of "proprietary vs free" software is just bunk. When you download Linux you hurt the economy by taking money from Microsoft. When you download the Gimp you hurt Adobe. I'm sick of all these people who think that just because they can write programs they have the right to drive
  • 1. Download Fahrenheit.911.CAM-POT(1).torrent from here [66.90.75.92] on your desktop.

    2. Open it with your favorite BitTorrent client.

    3. Start the download and wait X hours for it to finish. My DSL line downloaded the 1.03GB file in around two hours plus.

    4. Unpack the file "pot.911a.rar" in the CD1 directory as well as the "pot.911b.rar" in the CD2 directory with your favorite RAR extraction program. Opening the RAR file will automatically identify all the segments and put them together. This will create "pot.911a" a
  • The latest variations of the W32.Beagle virus might be skewing the numbers here. These variants place copies of themselves in any folder on a Windows system that contains the string "shar" (from Symantec [symantec.com]:

    Attempts to spread across file-sharing networks, such as Kazaa and iMesh, by copying itself into folders that contain the string "shar" in their names. The worm uses the following file names:

    ACDSee 9.exe
    Adobe Photoshop 9 full.exe
    Ahead Nero 7.exe
    Matrix 3 Revolution English Subtitles.exe
    Microsoft Office 2

  • Whoa! (Score:2)

    by koali ( 175176 )
    That Cameron Diaz video has made all the difference!

Slashdot Top Deals

Bus error -- driver executed.

Close