Any thoughts on sharing legitimate content?

Z

Zack

New member
I've been thinking about sharing legitimate content through gnutella, but wonder if there's much point. Most of the stuff I see is either spam, pirated or porn. I like the idea of open sharing, open source, and an open community.

I like taking weather photos, and would like to share them. I'd be angry to see them used in a commercial way (arrogant assumption, eh?). Is there an equivalent of the open source license for content?

I can just just share through the .Mac homepage service (it's well set up for that sort of thing), but wondered if anyone in this community can see much realistic hope for gnutella as a legitimate medium for sharing original material.

If anyone can see any realistic value in such an attempt, any ideas on practical concerns like naming the files ("sasx-winter 001.jpg"?), annotating them for meta-data (exif2), and licensing would be appreciated.

Frost in Saskatchewan, anyone? Or just back to "Please share Britney awesome".
 
Not only is it possible, it is being done by many people. Not in the same scale, of course. However, this depends on people sharing non-pirated software on the one hand, and people willing to download it on the other hand.

Ivan
"In the dark we make a brighter light"
 
We left the Gnutella Community several months ago in an effort to support some of the other FileSharing Communities. We were waiting for things at LimeWire to stabalize a bit. It looked like they're having a lot of problem but many of them seem to be resolved now.

We purchased the pro edition of their latest offering version 3.2.1 and put online some content servers and we will see how things go over the next few weeks.
 
There is already an excellent peer to peer network available for copyright free music. Lots of goodstuff depending on your taste.
The trend is toward the .shn format. I'm sure you could build up quite a collection and share it on gnutella as well. You can learn about it at www.etree.org or www.furthurnet.net

I don't know if I'm anxious to be embroiled in a lawsuit and counter sue for false allegations, but it seems like it would be very gratifying to offer up titles that are legal but might be assumed to be illegal bt the RIAA. Just to mess with them.
 
That's a great idea, please do!
The more legitimate content that is shared on Gnutella the harder it is to shut down.

I try to share as much legitimate content as I can. I just takes a while to figure out what legitimate content people like and what name works the best to help people find it, but still accurately represents the content.

Wallpaper, pictures, fonts, books, documents, open source, etc. There are lots of popular things that are not copyrighted or are copyrighted but ok for non-business use.
 
Wallpaper! Thanks for the tip. I did find one called Autumn (one of the few without a provocative/spam title), remarkably nice, but the IPTC info was all blank--especially the copyright field.

Would IPTC info be considered searchable "metadata"? There are lots of Audio and Video search options in LW, but none for images.
 
For what it's worth, I've managed to gather a collection of ~10000 fine art images, all legit content all more than old enough to avoid any copyright claims. Problems serving a fileset of this size aside, it generates ~1GB/day (~1000 downloads/day) of interest

Other types of legit content that might be interesting could be:
Abandonware - web sites hosting abandonware often have problems paying for bandwidth.Movie trailers - distribution is generally encouraged, although many web sites insist on playing in browsers rather than allowing a clean download.Demo tracks from new bands - lots of these on the web, distribution is welcome, but they can be hard to locate.Gutenberg documents - This project aims to preserve 'classic' works of literature (ie, ex copyright) in standard ASCII format.
 
I annotate all my files as [xyz-xyz] Author (if avaible) - title.xyz

So you could share your photos as

[wallpapers-weather photos] Your name - title.jpg

and everyone would know exactly where he/she is, when seeing them.

Else make them avaible via a bitzi ticket on your webpage.

Or personally PGP-signed BitTorrent files (as soon as they are supported by gnutella).
 
You can simply share your download folder.
I got one dl: AudioHijack, which the Website offered with only 0.5kB/s with 7kB/s (ISDN) from Gnutella.

When you do that, smaller sites will have less bandwidth problems, or might circumvent them with a magnet link.

I share all downloads and an archive of most of my past downloads.

For example it is possible like this to find an old version of a program, when it is no longer avaible on the web.
 
As I've said before, we've been doing this for a while now we have the servers connected via a T1 connection. We've been meshing our file databases for the last 12 hours. All server are returning results and there are people downloading files 24/7.

We have original CBT content Technology shows in MPG format we are hosting DRM content for transmissionfilms.com and we have our own ISO bundles.

see this thread for details and spread the word.


http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21313


Thanks in advance.
 
My name is Adam Harris and I am a Business developer at LimeWire. The reason that I am writing on this forum is to request if individuals with sources for appropriate, legitimate content especially video content, could get in touch with me. I would greatly appreciate it. Email me at [email protected]

Thanks,
Adam
 
An article on slashdot.org is discussing the Magnatune music label-- Creative Commons licensed.

Is there a "license" for legitimate content? Would be nice to have an ASCII character (like the TM
 
While I understand the thinking behind the desire for a mark indicating that information is in the public domain, I (along I suspect with others) would vehemently oppose the introduction of such a mark on principle.

Currently (in most of the world at least) all published information can be assumed to be in the public domain unless otherwise marked. That's not to say all information - the act of publishing is normally required (although not always necessarily by the owner or author of the information). The concept of copyright only applies to information you want to publish but retain ownership of.

Where copyright is claimed, it's a far far more acceptable approach to place the burden of maintaining it on the publisher than the reader. The introduction of a 'public domain' mark would reverse this entirely, requiring not only that an author decide to stop defending his or her copyright, but that that author must consciously decide to place their work in the public domain. Not good for the free flow of information.
 
Thanks Lee--I haven't visited your site for a few months, so I'll go back this week.

The devian site is bookmarked! Probably not my style, but I've sent that link on to a couple of my artist friends--thanks Paradog. Lots more reading to do.

So much to know, so little time and brain!
 
Good and essential point. If the copyright holders and courts would recognize that argument and spend their millions on setting up ways to correctly rename "mislabeled" files, we'd quickly see infringing content clearly identified.

p2p users should not be held responsible for the ripping software that mislabels files, or commercial distributors who fail to label their files appropriate with new electronic standards.

I would gladly filter all searches to block
 
Back
Top