GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Is 30% of the Internet traffic file sharing? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=897590)

Paul Markham 04-02-2009 10:45 PM

Is 30% of the Internet traffic file sharing?
 
Swedish 'Net Traffic Dips As Anti-Piracy Law Kicks In.

And more importantly what does it bring to the other 70% of users?

Some of whom I'm sure are still file sharing. :winkwink:

Discuss.

papill0n 04-02-2009 10:55 PM

not 30% closer to 90%

Paul Markham 04-02-2009 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RageCash-Ben (Post 15703733)
not 30% closer to 90%

I doubt if it's that high. But what do you think it brings to the other users?

What ever the % is.

Barefootsies 04-02-2009 11:59 PM

It's not called 'file sharing'.

See gideongallery for his 'terminology'.... time shifting, cloud, backing up files, etc...
:2 cents:

Paul Markham 04-03-2009 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 15703805)
It's not called 'file sharing'.

See gideongallery for his 'terminology'.... time shifting, cloud, backing up files, etc...
:2 cents:

It seems that what ever they are doing they don't doit so much if they know their IP address will be exposed. :1orglaugh

More transparency on the Net is a good thing. :thumbsup

Unless you want to hide something.

gideongallery 04-03-2009 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 15703802)
I doubt if it's that high. But what do you think it brings to the other users?

What ever the % is.

higher prices, less choice + hindering technological advancements that would make actual content producers a shit load of money.

Paul Markham 04-03-2009 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 15703968)
higher prices, less choice + hindering technological advancements that would make actual content producers a shit load of money.

That's what I thought. Detting rid of illegal file sharers will mean faster connections, possibly better prices or at least no higher prices, more paysites making more money.

Now how do we get more countries to adopt this law. LOL

gideongallery 04-03-2009 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 15704135)
That's what I thought. Detting rid of illegal file sharers will mean faster connections, possibly better prices or at least no higher prices, more paysites making more money.

Now how do we get more countries to adopt this law. LOL

no higher prices - as in forcing you to 2.99 for content you are perfectly within your right to timeshift for free

less choice - as in no release of behind the scenes, workprint stuff for people who would like to pull back the curtain and see how the movies are made

and loss of technology - no 42 bit color, no 12.1 dolby surround sound, no sync aroma releases (smellovision) for movies running in theaters.

wjxxx 04-03-2009 05:23 AM

European Commission wants to delegalize P2P and make ISPs liable for piracy :thumbsup

Fletch XXX 04-03-2009 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjxxx (Post 15704236)
European Commission wants to delegalize P2P and make ISPs liable for piracy :thumbsup

this makes so much sense.

lets limit technology because people will trade software, gimme a break.

they gonna ban FTP next? lol

real traders do it FTP

all this limewire crap is for dumb dads and goofballs who dont know how to get full album rips with one click.

FTP FTW

p2p FTL

lets ban HTTP next, its all filesharing lol

Emil 04-03-2009 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjxxx (Post 15704236)
European Commission wants to delegalize P2P and make ISPs liable for piracy :thumbsup

car manufacturers........ people driving too fast.... bla bla bla

wjxxx 04-03-2009 06:00 AM

99,99% of files shared via P2P are warez, stolen movies and stolen porn

Fletch XXX 04-03-2009 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjxxx (Post 15704315)
99,99% of files shared via P2P are warez, stolen movies and stolen porn

Doesnt matter, the technology is going nowhere, it is here to stay. It was not created to steal files, just like not all guns are used to kill people.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...comp_small.gif

Even huge corporations like Electronic Arts puts out 2 gig game patches using torrents, and many other perfectly legal corporate uses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.torrent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer

Dennis69 04-03-2009 06:12 AM

Way more then 30% I'd say, well over the half mark share these days!

Paul Markham 04-03-2009 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 15704145)
no higher prices - as in forcing you to 2.99 for content you are perfectly within your right to timeshift for free

less choice - as in no release of behind the scenes, workprint stuff for people who would like to pull back the curtain and see how the movies are made

and loss of technology - no 42 bit color, no 12.1 dolby surround sound, no sync aroma releases (smellovision) for movies running in theaters.

Are you on the same planet as the rest of us or in gideonworld?

Never have you said anything more crazy. The people who are not file sharing because they don't want to be revealed obviously think differently.

More people buy, the more people will release to sell.

The rest I assume was a joke.

gideongallery 04-03-2009 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 15704413)
Are you on the same planet as the rest of us or in gideonworld?

Never have you said anything more crazy. The people who are not file sharing because they don't want to be revealed obviously think differently.

More people buy, the more people will release to sell.

The rest I assume was a joke.


you were the one who pointed out that the VCR was responsible for all those new income streams for your industry.

Had sony lost "timeshifting" case none of that revenue would have happened.

every fair use win has caused an explosion of new technological innovations and revenue generating capacity. (vcr -> home viewing marketplace ,format shifting -> cheap solid state disk ...)

when/if "access shifting" comes about and the consequence is that movies would have to be released in theaters/dvd/bittorrent at the exact same time to be protected by copyright law. Movie theaters will be forced to differentiate based on technology, which can work in their enviroment but is not technologically or economically feasible in the home (yet).

so movies will be filmed in 42 bit color so that movies in the theaters will look 3D without having to wear stupid glasses.

Aromas will be piped in and sync with key visual sequences in the movie

12 points of sound articulation will happen for the movies.

ultimately those technologies will become cheaper and more efficient and they will migrate to the home, but all of that is being stopped because movie studioes can hide behind copyright law to protect a fundamentally lacking entertainment experience.

Fletch XXX 04-03-2009 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 15703805)
It's not called 'file sharing'.

See gideongallery for his 'terminology'.... time shifting, cloud, backing up files, etc...
:2 cents:

I know you guys all like to pounce on this gideon guy, but timeshifting and the court cases he mentions (Sony) are legit, backed by landmark decisions on the legal books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting

Quote:

The legality of time-shifting programming in the United States was proven by a landmark court case of Universal Studios versus Sony Corporation (Sony v. Universal), when Sony argued successfully that the advent of its Betamax video recorder in 1976 did not violate the copyright of the owners of shows which it recorded.

In 1979, Universal sued Sony, claiming its timed recording capability amounted to "copyright infringement". However, a district court found that noncommercial home use recording was considered fair use and ruled in favor of Sony. In appeals, the United States Court of Appeals reversed this decision in 1981 giving the edge to Universal, but the Supreme Court of the United States reversed it yet again in 1984, and found in favor of Sony 5-4. The majority decision held that time shifting was a fair use, represented no substantial harm to the copyright holder, and would not contribute to a diminished marketplace for its product. Today, this is widely referred to as the "Betamax case" or "Betamax decision".

gideongallery 04-03-2009 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX (Post 15704469)
I know you guys all like to pounce on this gideon guy, but timeshifting and the court cases he mentions (Sony) are legit, backed by landmark decisions on the legal books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting

and it has been extended to the cloud too

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud

and that ruling has not been overturned.

Zyzz 04-03-2009 07:50 AM

no surprise there :disgust

Paul Markham 04-03-2009 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX (Post 15704339)
Doesnt matter, the technology is going nowhere, it is here to stay. It was not created to steal files, just like not all guns are used to kill people.

Even huge corporations like Electronic Arts puts out 2 gig game patches using torrents, and many other perfectly legal corporate uses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.torrent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer

People who don't share (theft) stuff they don't own have nothing to fear.

Serge Litehead 04-03-2009 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX (Post 15704339)
...just like not all guns are used to kill people...

exactly some guns used as lighters and others as tools to achieve great sexual highs :)

burntfilm 04-03-2009 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holograph (Post 15704619)
exactly some guns used as lighters and others as tools to achieve great sexual highs :)

Like Paul Stanley's "Love Gun" !!!:thumbsup

Dennis69 04-03-2009 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 15704145)
no higher prices - as in forcing you to 2.99 for content you are perfectly within your right to timeshift for free

less choice - as in no release of behind the scenes, workprint stuff for people who would like to pull back the curtain and see how the movies are made

and loss of technology - no 42 bit color, no 12.1 dolby surround sound, no sync aroma releases (smellovision) for movies running in theaters.


man you really need to put down the crack pipe and come back to reality!

TeenCat 04-03-2009 10:13 AM

now imagine teleports ... servers in russia selling datas how to rebuild goods as cars and clothes ... :)

WiredGuy 04-03-2009 10:14 AM

Its definitely closer to 50% or more and its a great market waiting to be monetized.
WG

candyflip 04-03-2009 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 15704585)
People who don't share (theft) stuff they don't own have nothing to fear.

What do those downloading have to fear?

tiger 04-03-2009 12:37 PM

My guess is at least 50%

Paul Markham 04-03-2009 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by candyflip (Post 15704918)
What do those downloading have to fear?

The Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive requires Internet service providers to reveal the Internet Protocol addresses of alleged copyright infringers to rights holders when ordered by a court.

Does that tell you.

They are scared they will get found.

It's a good law. If you don't do anything wrong the courts won't reveal your IP. If you do something wrong they will. Then the company being stolen from can take it to the next level.

It's not a slam dunk, just another rung up the ladder to stop thieves.

donnie 04-04-2009 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 15706453)
Does that tell you.

They are scared they will get found.

It's a good law. If you don't do anything wrong the courts won't reveal your IP. If you do something wrong they will. Then the company being stolen from can take it to the next level.

It's not a slam dunk, just another rung up the ladder to stop thieves.

It is a very bad law. Private interests should never be given access to that information. Only police should have right to investigate crime (if file sharing is a crime).

And 30% drop credited to less file sharing is just more bullshit from "anti-piracy" people. There was a 30% drop on the same day last year and it is probably because weather is usually nice on that day (April 1st) in Sweden.

But who cares, the law is already obsolete :) And will be removed as soon as the current (USA/Hollywood asskissing) government is out.

Paul Markham 04-04-2009 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donnie (Post 15706699)
It is a very bad law. Private interests should never be given access to that information. Only police should have right to investigate crime (if file sharing is a crime).

And 30% drop credited to less file sharing is just more bullshit from "anti-piracy" people. There was a 30% drop on the same day last year and it is probably because weather is usually nice on that day (April 1st) in Sweden.

But who cares, the law is already obsolete :) And will be removed as soon as the current (USA/Hollywood asskissing) government is out.

It has to go through a court. And I don't think copyright violation is a thing the police need to get involved with. The file shares must hate this law though. Should a few thousand file sharers be allowed to bring down the profitability of industries and clog up the Internet with their free loading is the question.

Obsolete is something you might hope for. Watch your post box. :winkwink:

V_RocKs 04-04-2009 03:18 AM

Sharing some illegal shit right now.

Paul Markham 04-04-2009 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WiredGuy (Post 15704914)
Its definitely closer to 50% or more and its a great market waiting to be monetized.
WG

Yes let's all concentrate on monetizing people who don't want to spend rather than monetizing those who will spend money. Or were you joking?

WiredGuy 04-04-2009 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 15707429)
Yes let's all concentrate on monetizing people who don't want to spend rather than monetizing those who will spend money. Or were you joking?

Learn how to do it right and you can make serious bank. You could say the same about tube/mgp/tgp sites, why pay when you can get it free... p2p is just another avenue.
WG

gideongallery 04-04-2009 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 15707429)
Yes let's all concentrate on monetizing people who don't want to spend rather than monetizing those who will spend money. Or were you joking?

your so right, none of those people who watch tv shows for free ever buy anything. All those ads go to waste

idiot.

HorseShit 04-04-2009 01:16 PM

this thread only proves most people have no clue

Paul Markham 04-04-2009 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery (Post 15707811)
your so right, none of those people who watch tv shows for free ever buy anything. All those ads go to waste

idiot.

No you're the idiot.

How much do you pay for cable? Then add the special channels and the PPV and then the adverts.

Also adverts are every 10 to 15 minutes, do you see that coming on Torrent sites and Tubes? Great scene with an advert every 12 minutes.

Youtube loses money hand over fist.

WiredGuy my point is we spend a fortune in this industry "monetizing" people who are unlikely to buy. Yet people who do buy most spend as little as possible. Why try to monetize the bottom of the barrel when it would cost less and bring better results monetizing the top layer?

I suppose people are so set in their ways they still think what worked in 1998 still works today. Even though everything points the opposite way.

WiredGuy 04-04-2009 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 15707880)
Why try to monetize the bottom of the barrel when it would cost less and bring better results monetizing the top layer?

Why does Rolls Royce sell 6 figure cars wen you can buy a Honda Civic for a fraction of the price. There's millions of freeloaders who have no problem looking at ads. Sure, they're the bottom of the barrel but there's millions of them.
WG

candyflip 04-04-2009 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 15706453)
The Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive requires Internet service providers to reveal the Internet Protocol addresses of alleged copyright infringers to rights holders when ordered by a court.

Does that tell you.

They are scared they will get found.

It's a good law. If you don't do anything wrong the courts won't reveal your IP. If you do something wrong they will. Then the company being stolen from can take it to the next level.

It's not a slam dunk, just another rung up the ladder to stop thieves.

They aren't even taking this to the courts. There's no repercussions for downloading anything you want from the internet. A few people have been sued by the MPAA and the RIAA, but that was just for show and tell.

I can download 100 new movies this week. Illegal or not is really irrelevant as they're nothing to stop me.

gideongallery 04-04-2009 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 15707880)
No you're the idiot.

How much do you pay for cable? Then add the special channels and the PPV and then the adverts.

Also adverts are every 10 to 15 minutes, do you see that coming on Torrent sites and Tubes? Great scene with an advert every 12 minutes.

Youtube loses money hand over fist.

the average tv show has 26 commercial spots, do you know how much money a tv show producers get out of that 4 commercial spots. Most goes to cover the infrastructure cost.

cut those spots out you only need to pay the content producers a very small amount for them to break even.

you just have to figuire out how to get that small payment from the advertisers (branding bugs you moron)


Quote:

WiredGuy my point is we spend a fortune in this industry "monetizing" people who are unlikely to buy. Yet people who do buy most spend as little as possible. Why try to monetize the bottom of the barrel when it would cost less and bring better results monetizing the top layer?

I suppose people are so set in their ways they still think what worked in 1998 still works today. Even though everything points the opposite way.
first of all you are not monetizing the top of the barrel the escort agencies representing the pornstars are. Giving away their girls movies, get a bunch of people horny enough to treat themselves to getting fucked by their favorite pornstar

second of all

rolex vs timex.

nuff said.

Paul Markham 04-04-2009 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by candyflip (Post 15707899)
They aren't even taking this to the courts. There's no repercussions for downloading anything you want from the internet. A few people have been sued by the MPAA and the RIAA, but that was just for show and tell.

I can download 100 new movies this week. Illegal or not is really irrelevant as they're nothing to stop me.

If you're not in Sweden this is true. What would happen if you were in a country with a similar law?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123