running an "illegal" tube site just became a whole lot cheaper

[gideongallery]

Adobe is getting serious about their implementation of peer-to-peer technology to assist Flash-based video streaming and applications. The upcoming release of Adobe?s Flash Player 10.1 will enable publishers to dramatically reduce bandwidth costs by outsourcing media distribution to users.

http://torrentfreak.com/adobe-flash-...th-p2p-100519/

those who remember me pointing out the java based bit torrent streaming application
well now flash is basically going to do the same thing.

what interesting it will add the legal protection of no one giving away a full copy of the file anymore.

under this system tube site streamed videos would be protected by the precedents set by the bit torrent cases too.

[seeandsee]

just what we all want, make cheap net for tubes, great!

[Jack Sparrow]

Great keep me updated.

Everyone can profit from it if you are a bit biz savy btw

[LoveSandra]

hosting is cheap

[dozey]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

what interesting it will add the legal protection of no one giving away a full copy of the file anymore.

under this system tube site streamed videos would be protected by the precedents set by the bit torrent cases too.

Not really.

The tube site would have to disseminate the video to distributed peers in the first place. Considering the transient nature of flash applications (they're stuck in a webpage that will be closed or reloaded), there's no way you'd get enough peer retention for distributed persistence.

Tube sites will still have to retain content. This will save on the bandwidth / transfer for the more popular videos they host though.

[Caligari]

moot point. they're going after the end users as well. all will be over for the illegal bullshit soon. the true meaning of fair use will be enforced. end users are getting the news now. once you have a few thousand end users paying hefty infringement fines - game over.

"One thing judges will ask is 'did you use this for a different purpose than the original or are you merely taking something that somebody's actually selling, and getting it for free?' Basically - are you taking market value from them?

Donaldson added that 'there?s no first amendment right to steal something and make money off it,' and to just keep in mind those 1st amendment origins of fair use law."

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Caligari

moot point. they're going after the end users as well. all will be over for the illegal bullshit soon. the true meaning of fair use will be enforced. end users are getting the news now. once you have a few thousand end users paying hefty infringement fines - game over.

"One thing judges will ask is 'did you use this for a different purpose than the original or are you merely taking something that somebody's actually selling, and getting it for free?' Basically - are you taking market value from them?

Donaldson added that 'there?s no first amendment right to steal something and make money off it,' and to just keep in mind those 1st amendment origins of fair use law."

i suggest you watch the video and get the documents that are written about what is and what is not fair use

the fact is your video combined with 100s of pages of commentary about cede video
is not "merely taking something that somebody's acutally selling and getting it for free"


that arguement is just a rehash of the bogus you can't make money from fair use, if you make money it not fair use.

something which i have proven is false by dozens of examples
vcr, diamond rio, cd dvd backup , hosted backup services, 1/6 of the us economy etc .....

[VGeorgie]

You missed the point that Adobe's P2P technology requires an RTMFP-capable server. The peers won't connect without it. This is not just another P2P scheme, but a mechanism for publishers to load balance their content to avoid single-point failures. It's really intended for large-scale distribution for video streaming, such as the kind Netflix and Amazon do.

Or perhaps you think Adobe is stupid. Maybe they want to be the next Limewire.

[~Ray]

if adobe gets in the "illegal tube loop", can they not be sued for distributing stolen content?

[Serge Litehead]

unless flash will be always running on background as a bittorrent client it wont work how you think it would

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by Caligari

all will be over for the illegal bullshit soon.

You are dilusional.

Originally Posted by Caligari

once you have a few thousand end users paying hefty infringement fines - game over.

Yeah, because it was game over for music piracy when the RIAA started suing.


The authorities can't put this genie back in the bottle. The industries affected will have to find their own workarounds.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

You are dilusional.

"dilusional" is not a word, however you would be the one who is delusional.

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Yeah, because it was game over for music piracy when the RIAA started suing.
The authorities can't put this genie back in the bottle. The industries affected will have to find their own workarounds.

RIAA? that is funny. You're in denial, take some xanax and do 50 hail marys for penance. Unless you have your head buried in the sand and you're not following recent events you would surely know what is happening right now.

As shit gets tighter the big guns are coming down harder, simple as that. And while it is impossible to get rid of all piracy, the huge crippling bites being taken out of it will be sufficient.

[96ukssob]

wow, retarded

[dozey]

Originally Posted by Caligari

moot point. they're going after the end users as well. all will be over for the illegal bullshit soon. the true meaning of fair use will be enforced. end users are getting the news now. once you have a few thousand end users paying hefty infringement fines - game over.

You realise that has already failed right? Remember the whole RIAA debacle

http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAAatTWO_FINAL.pdf

[Caligari]

yes but that was then, this is now. its a whole new ball game. RIAA did not have the stamina but the tv/movie industry does.

Count the cases right now and what they are doing. This is not a flash in the pan, they are going after the big kills. Limewire, Pirate Bay, Rapidshare etc., it will take a while but they will get there. Some of these pirates can only keep re-surfacing so long until they run out of friends and resources and discover its just not worth it.

[dozey]

The parties you mention aren't even necessarily pirates. But it's true they're putting a lot of pressure on the ISPs these networks rely on. They're essentially taking down the indexes / directories so people can no longer propagate pirated material.

You might consider the following though:

• Torrents are now completely decentralised
• Some of the oldest P2P network are decentralised
• Of those old networks, some are still alive today despite being 'decapitated'
• Indexing is a relatively new phenomenon in terms of P2P networks
• There is nothing preventing inception of more decentralised networks

All of that basically suggests that file sharing isn't going away any time soon. No doubt counteracting measures will come into play (3 strikes etc), but the efficacy of such measures really depends on how vulnerable the networks are; something that is likely to change along with perceived threats.

Frankly I can't picture any real fruition until cheap, legal, on demand replacements proliferate in the market.

[mafia_man]

Originally Posted by dozey

Not really.

The tube site would have to disseminate the video to distributed peers in the first place. Considering the transient nature of flash applications (they're stuck in a webpage that will be closed or reloaded), there's no way you'd get enough peer retention for distributed persistence.

Tube sites will still have to retain content. This will save on the bandwidth / transfer for the more popular videos they host though.

That is correct, this technology is targeted at the likes of BBC iPlayer and Hulu.

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by dozey

Frankly I can't picture any real fruition until cheap, legal, on demand replacements proliferate in the market.

The whole "free culture" croud just want to get their shit free, they're not going to settle with any "cheap" replacements - ZERO is the only price they're ready to pay. Maybe legal download services, if available, will have some moderate success, but the vast majority of current TBP downloaders will still be pulling their shit free from TBP. Until the damn thing is dead no legal replacements, however cheap, are going to really compete and make it up for the lost income.

Our own industry is the best example of that - unlike major studios we do provide convenient DRM free downloads at fair prices, and just look where we are now.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

The whole "free culture" croud just want to get their shit free, they're not going to settle with any "cheap" replacements - ZERO is the only price they're ready to pay. Maybe legal download services, if available, will have some moderate success, but the vast majority of current TBP downloaders will still be pulling their shit free from TBP. Until the damn thing is dead no legal replacements, however cheap, are going to really compete and make it up for the lost income.

Our own industry is the best example of that - unlike major studios we do provide convenient DRM free downloads at fair prices, and just look where we are now.

you believe that selling content that cost you 15k to produce at a price point that equal to content that cost 150 million to produce is "fair price".

wow

[L-Pink]

fuck you


.

[dozey]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

The whole "free culture" croud just want to get their shit free, they're not going to settle with any "cheap" replacements - ZERO is the only price they're ready to pay. Maybe legal download services, if available, will have some moderate success, but the vast majority of current TBP downloaders will still be pulling their shit free from TBP. Until the damn thing is dead no legal replacements, however cheap, are going to really compete and make it up for the lost income.

Our own industry is the best example of that - unlike major studios we do provide convenient DRM free downloads at fair prices, and just look where we are now.

I think before saying that, you really need to look at the "free culture" landscape. With the exception of scene type groups, most of the pirated content available trickles from niche communities, namely DDL forums and private bittorrent trackers. Note that public versions of these venues have existed for a long time; it's not as though niche communities sprung up through want of a new publishing medium. These sites do a great job focusing on their respective niches; high quality screen captures, great documentation, you name it. Not only that, but you can cherry pick which ever files you want - no need to pay for an entire site membership when you're just after that one video. Is it really any wonder that they attract a crowd? There's demand for the service.

I think the nature of those sites says a lot about what the "free culture" demographic might be willing to pay for. Visiting one of those sites isn't a whole lot different to visiting the video store; it's all on the shelf, well presented, you take what you want, nothing more, nothing less. Forget about the checkout for now.

You can probably see that tubes come pretty close to providing all of these features. They work quite well as a video channels / stores and have the capacity to provide pretty much everything the "free culture" crowd likes even better than the aforementioned source can.

Consider tubes:

• Trailers are available
• You can watch on demand (no long wait)
• There's no waiting for site rips or updates to be pirated
• There's no added complication of tracking down files
• You don't have to run clients in the background and burn upstream bw
• There are no download / upload ratio requirements
• The presentation is quite adept
• There is already a preference toward tubes for many of the above reasons

With those advantages (or added value), there is definitely incentive to pay a small amount rather than go through the less friendly process of piracy. Just how small is a pretty important question - the answer to which probably isn't within the realm of 'business as usual.'

Of course there's the problem of tube owners debasing the entire market by offering everything for free (often using pirated content too). It's no different to a pay site opening its doors and doing the same really. They are actively competing and cheating, but that's more of an internal industry issue than it is an external influence.

I don't really want to deride any aspect of the industry at present, but as far as piracy is concerned, the cat is out of the bag, end of story.

[2012]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Adobe is getting serious about their implementation of peer-to-peer technology to assist Flash-based video streaming and applications. The upcoming release of Adobe?s Flash Player 10.1 will enable publishers to dramatically reduce bandwidth costs by outsourcing media distribution to users.

http://torrentfreak.com/adobe-flash-...th-p2p-100519/

those who remember me pointing out the java based bit torrent streaming application
well now flash is basically going to do the same thing.

what interesting it will add the legal protection of no one giving away a full copy of the file anymore.

under this system tube site streamed videos would be protected by the precedents set by the bit torrent cases too.

[VGeorgie]

This is all a moot point really, and the original Torrentfreak article very much mischaracterizes RTMFP, which is formally termed a peer assisted protocol. It's unlike traditional P2P protocols.

First, it's primarily intended for live and streamed events - "RT" means real time. Like RTMP it doesn't store the video content beyond a local cache. This is completely unlike P2P which is intended to store a local, static copy of the content.

Second, it requires a controlling server (Adobe's is called Stratus) to initiate and maintain the connections with all peers. The peers can talk to one another, but at the direction of the server. This adds centralization that most P2P networks try to avoid, for legal reasons.

Third, for mass media delivery the idea is less about saving overall bandwidth but using a web of provider peers to help increase scale without building fatter pipes. It's not unlike how Google works. By distributing the load a network logjam at any source won't impede the overall data flow.

Adobe is specifically not providing a means to distribute non-real time media over P2P. Why join the ranks of Napster, Grokster, and Limewire? Adobe is a mult-billion dollar company. Does anyone really think they'd jeopardize themselves just to make a P2P client that could be used for piracy?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

You missed the point that Adobe's P2P technology requires an RTMFP-capable server. The peers won't connect without it. This is not just another P2P scheme, but a mechanism for publishers to load balance their content to avoid single-point failures. It's really intended for large-scale distribution for video streaming, such as the kind Netflix and Amazon do.

Or perhaps you think Adobe is stupid. Maybe they want to be the next Limewire.

gideongallery has no concept of how streaming technology works. He just looks for anything in any story that appears to say stealing is okay.

We are all STILL awaiting the results of his theories in action with thedoc

But I'm sure that GG already has backed out and made excuses on that one too.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you believe that selling content that cost you 15k to produce at a price point that equal to content that cost 150 million to produce is "fair price".

wow

It's called making a profit you ignorant bastard.

Goddamn, no wonder you are a failure at business.

[Niktamer]

i know http://play2p.com does it , and they look for partners.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

Does anyone really think they'd jeopardize themselves just to make a P2P client that could be used for piracy?

gideongallery does!

But of course whenever he isn't embarrassing himself with his mail order law diploma misreading of all laws known to man...he takes a little time like in this thread to show his complete and utter ignorance of technology as well.

Congrats gideongallery. You are now a joke on every front. Why you post on GFY has to be the biggest mystery of all times since you are not in this business at all anyway.

Look up the term "delusional loner" in the dictionary and there's a picture of this ass clown.

[Dirty Dane]

Thats good news. Tracking infringers will become much easier with P2P hosting. The copyright holder and investigators can just connect and harvest

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by dozey

I think before saying that, you really need to look at the "free culture" landscape.

I'm looking at this piece of shit "culture" landscape every fucking day of my life for the last year or two. I'm reading forums, comments at torrent and tube sites, and even comments at torrentfreak recently, so yes, I'm pretty damn familiar with the subject.

While I agree with you that convenience of getting everything at one place attributes alot to the illegal sharing sites' popularity, that's still far from being the main reason. My estimation is that 90% of the "free culture" crowd just wants shit free and do not mind surfing 20 different sites to get what they want (free of course). About 10% or even less are ready to pay for convenience of getting everything at one place (rapidshare or newsgroup subscription, that kinda things), but only at symbolic prices like $10/month or $50/year, and those prices are not life compatible for any creative industry.

For example, rapidshare is pulling laughable $80mil/year, and they provide download access to EVERYTHING, every little bit of human creativity ever created is stolen and uploaded to their servers. How can you sustain creativity of the entire human race - music, movies, software you name it, - at $80mil/year? Even if 100% of it goes to producers of the original content. Even $80 billion is not enough to produce all the stuff that is "shared" there, let alone $80 million. And they're not ever going to pull anything close to $80bil.

So if some services will pop up that provide access to huge variety of legal content at fair price (not nearly as "fair" as $10/month for everything though), free culture crowd is not going to migrate there. They'll stick to their sharing forums and go on as usual. Those services will be fairly popular, but only among the people who are not free culture crowd today - those who still buy paysites membership, download songs at itunes, rent movies at netflix etc. They will be interested, but free culture ppl will not.

Just read what they post at their forums - it is painfully obvious that they really believe that creative products grow on trees and are free for any one to "share", "sharing is caring" bs etc. They behave as if producers simply do not exist - "original uploader" is kinda producer in their world. They always bitch when there's not enough "thank you" after they posted some freshly stolen stuff, they often fly sigs saying "thank the uploader" because that's kinda etiquette in their communities - but they never ever thank the real producer of the shit they like. Never ever post a link back, never encourage to join site if you liked their stuff to help producing more of it. Nothing, ever. And they never ever going to join any of our sites because for them we kinda do not exist, and you cannot join something that does not exist. No download alternatives are going to change that - they'll get back to buying only after their forums and torrents and other crap is dead and buried.

[Robbie]

Nautilus...you just don't understand how to monetize this new "revenue stream"

But don't worry, gideongallery has figured it all out and soon we will all be making more money than EVER before by giving everything away for free!

This is actually a great thing! Because once gideon educates us on how to do it...the rest of the world will follow.

I can't WAIT to go down and pick out that brand new Lamborghini sports car I always wanted and have them give it to me for FREE!

And I'm gonna get the biggest and best flat screen on the market for FREE!

Groceries? FREE!
Gas? FREE!
Beer? FREE!
Hookers? FREE!

And the best part is...all those companies and individuals are all gonna be making more money than they ever have before by giving it all to me for FREE!!!

The economy is going to not only recover but climb to new heights with this "new revenue stream"

The only thing I can't figure out is...what is gideongallery waiting for? Doesn't he realize that we all need his help NOW? He's gonna be the richest man on the planet when this all comes to pass...I just don't understand why he isn't getting this thing going.

It seems like it's been over a year that he's been telling us all about this happening and all the billions and billions of dollars that are coming.

Please hurry gideongallery. It's time you ended all unemployment and got the world economy kicking ass!

Thanks gideon!

[Cash4Me]

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

You missed the point that Adobe's P2P technology requires an RTMFP-capable server. The peers won't connect without it. This is not just another P2P scheme, but a mechanism for publishers to load balance their content to avoid single-point failures. It's really intended for large-scale distribution for video streaming, such as the kind Netflix and Amazon do.

Or perhaps you think Adobe is stupid. Maybe they want to be the next Limewire.

Right georgie. A streams configuration like this need to be managed by a RTMFP like protocol. I remember Adobe was working on an open project called Adobe Stratus.

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by Robbie

But don't worry, gideongallery has figured it all out and soon we will all be making more money than EVER before by giving everything away for free!

Well I guess "thank you" is going to be the currency in this brave new world I'll just post all of my content at pornbb and enjoy an occasional thank or two. Then I'll go to my Lexus dealer and they'll be happy to give me a new ride if I confirm that poster "mrnst756" at pornbb said "thank you" and was happy with me posting my shit for him to download free... I'll take my new ride and say "thank you", they'll order more rides from Lexus and when they arrive they'll say "thank you"... What a wonderful world

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Well I guess "thank you" is going to be the currency in this brave new world I'll just post all of my content at pornbb and enjoy an occasional thank or two. Then I'll go to my Lexus dealer and they'll be happy to give me a new ride if I confirm that poster "mrnst756" at pornbb said "thank you" and was happy with me posting my shit for him to download free... I'll take my new ride and say "thank you", they'll order more rides from Lexus and when they arrive they'll say "thank you"... What a wonderful world

Thank you

[Nautilus]

Meanwhile, Perfect 10 seem to have lost their case:

http://torrentfreak.com/rapidshare-n...-rules-100520/

Rapidshare walks clean again. That was expected I guess, but still, dammit... Second major win for them this month.

[Cash4Me]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

I'm looking at this piece of shit "culture" landscape every fucking day of my life for the last year or two. I'm reading forums, comments at torrent and tube sites, and even comments at torrentfreak recently, so yes, I'm pretty damn familiar with the subject.

.

Why do you call shit culture landscape?
This culture has created new revenue streams that we couldn't think about 4 or 5 years ago.
Stolen content exists and will exist, but what do you think about all the market places on the web.
iTunes is the first one, you can build an application (one man band) and sell it for 1$, there are developers who sell thousand and thousand apps a week and write application from their homes. Think about the new Android market place.
On Envato market place you can buy a professional Flash site for 40 bucks when only 6 years ago you had to pay $4.000. It's a win-win situation for the seller/developer and for the end user.
The world has changed but the smarter ones will always leverage the change for their monetization.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Cash4Me

Why do you call shit culture landscape?
This culture has created new revenue streams that we couldn't think about 4 or 5 years ago.
Stolen content exists and will exist, but what do you think about all the market places on the web.
iTunes is the first one, you can build an application (one man band) and sell it for 1$, there are developers who sell thousand and thousand apps a week and write application from their homes. Think about the new Android market place.
On Envato market place you can buy a professional Flash site for 40 bucks when only 6 years ago you had to pay $4.000. It's a win-win situation for the seller/developer and for the end user.
The world has changed but the smarter ones will always leverage the change for their monetization.

Dude, itunes and piracy have NOTHING to do with each other!

Building apps for an iphone has NOTHING to do with stolen content.

There is NO "new revenue stream" for a producer having his content uploaded to thepiratebay or rapidshare or pornhub and given away for free.

Yeah, if we all want to leave porn and build an app for a phone...I guess that is "new revenue"

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by Cash4Me

Why do you call shit culture landscape?
This culture has created new revenue streams that we couldn't think about 4 or 5 years ago.
Stolen content exists and will exist, but what do you think about all the market places on the web.
iTunes is the first one, you can build an application (one man band) and sell it for 1$, there are developers who sell thousand and thousand apps a week and write application from their homes. Think about the new Android market place.
On Envato market place you can buy a professional Flash site for 40 bucks when only 6 years ago you had to pay $4.000. It's a win-win situation for the seller/developer and for the end user.
The world has changed but the smarter ones will always leverage the change for their monetization.

Do you expect me to quit producing porn and record some song to sell it at $1 at itunes? People listening for me singing, do Jesus... I aint commiting crimes against humanity

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

Do you expect me to quit producing porn and record some song to sell it at $1 at itunes? People listening for me singing, do Jesus... I aint commiting crimes against humanity

And again I say....
Thank you

[Nautilus]

Originally Posted by Robbie

And again I say....
Thank you

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

I'm looking at this piece of shit "culture" landscape every fucking day of my life for the last year or two. I'm reading forums, comments at torrent and tube sites, and even comments at torrentfreak recently, so yes, I'm pretty damn familiar with the subject.

While I agree with you that convenience of getting everything at one place attributes alot to the illegal sharing sites' popularity, that's still far from being the main reason. My estimation is that 90% of the "free culture" crowd just wants shit free and do not mind surfing 20 different sites to get what they want (free of course). About 10% or even less are ready to pay for convenience of getting everything at one place (rapidshare or newsgroup subscription, that kinda things), but only at symbolic prices like $10/month or $50/year, and those prices are not life compatible for any creative industry.

For example, rapidshare is pulling laughable $80mil/year, and they provide download access to EVERYTHING, every little bit of human creativity ever created is stolen and uploaded to their servers. How can you sustain creativity of the entire human race - music, movies, software you name it, - at $80mil/year? Even if 100% of it goes to producers of the original content. Even $80 billion is not enough to produce all the stuff that is "shared" there, let alone $80 million. And they're not ever going to pull anything close to $80bil.

So if some services will pop up that provide access to huge variety of legal content at fair price (not nearly as "fair" as $10/month for everything though), free culture crowd is not going to migrate there. They'll stick to their sharing forums and go on as usual. Those services will be fairly popular, but only among the people who are not free culture crowd today - those who still buy paysites membership, download songs at itunes, rent movies at netflix etc. They will be interested, but free culture ppl will not.

Just read what they post at their forums - it is painfully obvious that they really believe that creative products grow on trees and are free for any one to "share", "sharing is caring" bs etc. They behave as if producers simply do not exist - "original uploader" is kinda producer in their world. They always bitch when there's not enough "thank you" after they posted some freshly stolen stuff, they often fly sigs saying "thank the uploader" because that's kinda etiquette in their communities - but they never ever thank the real producer of the shit they like. Never ever post a link back, never encourage to join site if you liked their stuff to help producing more of it. Nothing, ever. And they never ever going to join any of our sites because for them we kinda do not exist, and you cannot join something that does not exist. No download alternatives are going to change that - they'll get back to buying only after their forums and torrents and other crap is dead and buried.

more than 50% of all torrent traffic is for content tha people already paid for
tv shows represents 49% of all bit torrent traffic today
and movies that air on tv another 5-7%

not wanting to pay twice for stuff you already bought
fair use is supposed to be a free market competitions

tape timeshifting is supposed to compete against re run timeshifting

the action not the medium defines weather the action is right or wrong.
stop bitching about the medium you idiot

Originally Posted by Robbie

Nautilus...you just don't understand how to monetize this new "revenue stream"

But don't worry, gideongallery has figured it all out and soon we will all be making more money than EVER before by giving everything away for free!

This is actually a great thing! Because once gideon educates us on how to do it...the rest of the world will follow.

I can't WAIT to go down and pick out that brand new Lamborghini sports car I always wanted and have them give it to me for FREE!

And I'm gonna get the biggest and best flat screen on the market for FREE!

Groceries? FREE!
Gas? FREE!
Beer? FREE!
Hookers? FREE!

And the best part is...all those companies and individuals are all gonna be making more money than they ever have before by giving it all to me for FREE!!!

The economy is going to not only recover but climb to new heights with this "new revenue stream"

The only thing I can't figure out is...what is gideongallery waiting for? Doesn't he realize that we all need his help NOW? He's gonna be the richest man on the planet when this all comes to pass...I just don't understand why he isn't getting this thing going.

It seems like it's been over a year that he's been telling us all about this happening and all the billions and billions of dollars that are coming.

Please hurry gideongallery. It's time you ended all unemployment and got the world economy kicking ass!

Thanks gideon!

your an idiot fair use friendly liciencing doesn't have to be public domain
there are dozens of fair use friendly liciences that allow you to sell your stuff
and applying a fair use friendly licience actually protects your content better because the fair use can;t override your monetary business.

Originally Posted by Robbie

Dude, itunes and piracy have NOTHING to do with each other!

Building apps for an iphone has NOTHING to do with stolen content.

There is NO "new revenue stream" for a producer having his content uploaded to thepiratebay or rapidshare or pornhub and given away for free.

Yeah, if we all want to leave porn and build an app for a phone...I guess that is "new revenue"

your so clueless
there was no new revenue stream when vcr allowed timeshifting
there was no new revenue stream when diamond rio introduced the mp3
there was no new revenue stream when the printing press was created
...
how can you keep arguing how impossible it is for a new revenue stream to exist with so much proof that every time we have gone thru this debate there has always been a new revenue stream.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

This is all a moot point really, and the original Torrentfreak article very much mischaracterizes RTMFP, which is formally termed a peer assisted protocol. It's unlike traditional P2P protocols.

First, it's primarily intended for live and streamed events - "RT" means real time. Like RTMP it doesn't store the video content beyond a local cache. This is completely unlike P2P which is intended to store a local, static copy of the content.

Second, it requires a controlling server (Adobe's is called Stratus) to initiate and maintain the connections with all peers. The peers can talk to one another, but at the direction of the server. This adds centralization that most P2P networks try to avoid, for legal reasons.

Third, for mass media delivery the idea is less about saving overall bandwidth but using a web of provider peers to help increase scale without building fatter pipes. It's not unlike how Google works. By distributing the load a network logjam at any source won't impede the overall data flow.

Adobe is specifically not providing a means to distribute non-real time media over P2P. Why join the ranks of Napster, Grokster, and Limewire? Adobe is a mult-billion dollar company. Does anyone really think they'd jeopardize themselves just to make a P2P client that could be used for piracy?

georgie did you not read post i made about java based bittorrent player

the point is the cost to stream the video to 1000 people is going to be the same as streaming it to 1.

it doesn't matter if it live, recorded or buffered

youtube s what being watched now type features will become more prevelent since a tube site will reduce it total bandwidth cost and server more ad views by focusing people into watching groups.

btw the usual pause until it buffers completely then hit play is going to be the biggest benefit of this technology.

[Serge Litehead]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

more than 50% of all torrent traffic is for content tha people already paid for
tv shows represents 49% of all bit torrent traffic today
and movies that air on tv another 5-7%

that's just your claim and theory based on theories from other sources which are based on some ROUGH calculations (probably twisted to support such claims as yours)
there is no chance in hell anyone can validate claim such as "more than 50% of all torrent traffic is for content tha people already paid for"
you may account percentage of TV shows on all torrents, which again is very doubtful, but there is no way in hell you can actually validate who of downloaders paid for them, many people in 2nd and 3rd world countries don't subscribe to cable, have limited local TV stations and d/l all they can from torrents including TV shows they otherwise have no access too

again, I underline - there is no way to validate any number of people who paid for what

torrents exploded for one single reason - piracy.
stop pushing some twisted numbers w/o backing up your claims with real data - for simple reason - you can not account ALL resources, and you CANNOT validate who paid for what.

all your arguments are simply based on some twisted estimations, nothing else.

[Serge Litehead]

another point that you are twisting Gideon, that needs to be straighten

even IF your claim such as
"more than 50% of all torrent traffic is for content tha people already paid for"
was true.. well damn.. how many copies of software needs to be stolen to beet one single TV show season downloaded legitametly in HD quality? do the math.
you're making it sound like piracy is no big deal.. hell with those traffic comparisons it is making huge dent on many industries with illegal downloads, which you're totally dismissing.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by holograph

that's just your claim and theory based on theories from other sources which are based on some ROUGH calculations (probably twisted to support such claims as yours)
there is no chance in hell anyone can validate claim such as "more than 50% of all torrent traffic is for content tha people already paid for"
you may account percentage of TV shows on all torrents, which again is very doubtful, but there is no way in hell you can actually validate who of downloaders paid for them, many people in 2nd and 3rd world countries don't subscribe to cable, have limited local TV stations and d/l all they can from torrents including TV shows they otherwise have no access too

again, I underline - there is no way to validate any number of people who paid for what

torrents exploded for one single reason - piracy.
stop pushing some twisted numbers w/o backing up your claims with real data - for simple reason - you can not account ALL resources, and you CANNOT validate who paid for what.

all your arguments are simply based on some twisted estimations, nothing else.

if you can't validate it for one then it also absolutely impossible to make the exact opposite arguement

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by holograph

another point that you are twisting Gideon, that needs to be straighten

even IF your claim such as
"more than 50% of all torrent traffic is for content tha people already paid for"
was true.. well damn.. how many copies of software needs to be stolen to beet one single TV show season downloaded legitametly in HD quality? do the math.
you're making it sound like piracy is no big deal.. hell with those traffic comparisons it is making huge dent on many industries with illegal downloads, which you're totally dismissing.

so your trying to argue that the entire technology should be taken way from everyone since some people could use it illegitimately

vcr can be used to bootleg movies should we eliminate the right of timeshifting now

the answer is the same for that case

leave the tracker alone
leave the seeder alone
leave the leacher with a fair use right alone
go after the leacher without the fair use right

[Serge Litehead]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

if you can't validate it for one then it also absolutely impossible to make the exact opposite arguement

this is your single one true statement, i cannot validate and you cannot validate, prove or disprove, so stop pushing some estimates as true stats of who paid for what and has legit right to timeshift on the interwebs. because those numbers someone's estimations and not factual data.

[Serge Litehead]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so your trying to argue that the entire technology should be taken way from everyone since some people could use it illegitimately

vcr can be used to bootleg movies should we eliminate the right of timeshifting now

the answer is the same for that case

leave the tracker alone
leave the seeder alone
leave the leacher with a fair use right alone
go after the leacher without the fair use right

my argument is simple. invent licence validation mechanism and timeshift all you want what you really paid for with others who really paid for it.
publicly available downloads only explode piracy and have nothing to do with fair use, until there are mechanism in place to validate your purchase of some content license. period.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by holograph

this is your single one true statement, i cannot validate and you cannot validate, prove or disprove, so stop pushing some estimates as true stats of who paid for what and has legit right to timeshift on the interwebs. because those numbers someone's estimations and not factual data.

i am not agreeing with you i am pointing out how stupid you are

the research study used the counting principles/allocation principles used for the data used in the anti-piracy cases.

if the number and counts were invalid it would be impossible to convict a single person of piracy.

the court recognized the validity of the statiticaly anlysis when used as evidence to convict
it equally valid when i quote it.

btw
if the content is not available in a country then no sale is being lost
if no sale is being lost the economic damage is no greater then if the "piracy" never occured.
which means your trying to justify censorship using the economic monopoly of copyright.

Originally Posted by holograph

my argument is simple. invent licence validation mechanism and timeshift all you want what you really paid for with others who really paid for it.
publicly available downloads only explode piracy and have nothing to do with fair use, until there are mechanism in place to validate your purchase of some content license. period.

and if that was the way it worked then the vcr would have been illegal you figuired out a perfect way to make sure you could daisy chain two of them together and copy movies (making bootlegs see above)
and the home viewing market which exceeds all other markets combined would never have existed.



thank god idiots like you are not responsible for defining what is fair use.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Nautilus

I'm looking at this piece of shit "culture" landscape every fucking day of my life for the last year or two. I'm reading forums, comments at torrent and tube sites, and even comments at torrentfreak recently, so yes, I'm pretty damn familiar with the subject.

While I agree with you that convenience of getting everything at one place attributes alot to the illegal sharing sites' popularity, that's still far from being the main reason. My estimation is that 90% of the "free culture" crowd just wants shit free and do not mind surfing 20 different sites to get what they want (free of course). About 10% or even less are ready to pay for convenience of getting everything at one place (rapidshare or newsgroup subscription, that kinda things), but only at symbolic prices like $10/month or $50/year, and those prices are not life compatible for any creative industry.

For example, rapidshare is pulling laughable $80mil/year, and they provide download access to EVERYTHING, every little bit of human creativity ever created is stolen and uploaded to their servers. How can you sustain creativity of the entire human race - music, movies, software you name it, - at $80mil/year? Even if 100% of it goes to producers of the original content. Even $80 billion is not enough to produce all the stuff that is "shared" there, let alone $80 million. And they're not ever going to pull anything close to $80bil.

So if some services will pop up that provide access to huge variety of legal content at fair price (not nearly as "fair" as $10/month for everything though), free culture crowd is not going to migrate there. They'll stick to their sharing forums and go on as usual. Those services will be fairly popular, but only among the people who are not free culture crowd today - those who still buy paysites membership, download songs at itunes, rent movies at netflix etc. They will be interested, but free culture ppl will not.

Just read what they post at their forums - it is painfully obvious that they really believe that creative products grow on trees and are free for any one to "share", "sharing is caring" bs etc. They behave as if producers simply do not exist - "original uploader" is kinda producer in their world. They always bitch when there's not enough "thank you" after they posted some freshly stolen stuff, they often fly sigs saying "thank the uploader" because that's kinda etiquette in their communities - but they never ever thank the real producer of the shit they like. Never ever post a link back, never encourage to join site if you liked their stuff to help producing more of it. Nothing, ever. And they never ever going to join any of our sites because for them we kinda do not exist, and you cannot join something that does not exist. No download alternatives are going to change that - they'll get back to buying only after their forums and torrents and other crap is dead and buried.

by that insanely stupid arguement

the home viewing market (which exceeds all the revenue combined) created by the vcr can't exist because creators could be paid from the revenue generated blank cassettes.

[Serge Litehead]

dude just buy a vcr and stop bitching about fair use on the internet. internet is not a vcr.

if something laying for free it will be taken regardless it was paid before or not and most likely will be taken by those who haven't paid for it before - nature of a human kind.

where is a fair use when it is all available for free without validating who has right to download it? WFT is wrong with you? you saying go after leecher without fair use right - do you have a way to monitor all reasources and new reasources poping up and actually prevent illegit downloads? no? so kindly GFY