!*Lil Me*!
New member
Because of the threatening letters from people's ISP, people that used to share are becoming freeloads.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gnutella: now even more freeloaders than ever before!
- Thread starter ✿ ツmei
- Start date
PurpleLover
New member
Freeloading is an ongoing problem for the network. On other networks such as IRC many people set upload and download quotas.
Some of the Gnutella clients allow you to control freeloaders to some extent.......predict we will see more of this ability in the future.
The only problem is that a servent behind a firewall usually end up as defacto freeloaders.....
Some of the Gnutella clients allow you to control freeloaders to some extent.......predict we will see more of this ability in the future.
The only problem is that a servent behind a firewall usually end up as defacto freeloaders.....
Whittney21
New member
SHEEP? What the hell are you talking about, "Help artists, Pirate MP3s"??????
Are you a complete idiot? You say 1 dollar off of every album goes to the ar****... If everyone listens to you and pirates MP3s, THEY WILL HAVE NO MONEY AT ALL, because that 1$, you took it from them by pirating!
(The following uses completely random numbers)
Say that on the gnutella network (or any other sharing software), one song from an artist gets downloaded, say, 20 times a day.
If each person that downloaded the song bought the album instead, that would be $20 a day for that artist! Going along the same line, that's $140 a week, $600 a month! If you suppose that the artist has at least 5 popular songs that are downloaded to the same amount, you can easily calculate $100 a day, $700 a week, or $3000 a month!!!!!!!
Now, place yourself in the artist's mind. You have 3 albums out, of which 5 songs are popular. You go on BearShare or KaZaA or WinMX, and look for your songs. You notice that you get around 100 hits for each song, on each different network... Here's your choices. You:
a) Get very excited at the fact that there are thousands of instances of illegal reproductions of your work on the internet, meaning you are very popular (in the illegal world)
or
b) You get very ****ed off because EACH INSTANCE OF THAT SONG ON THE NET MEANS $1 LESS IN YOUR POCKET, thus you are LOOSING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!
So, which is it going to be, "sheep" (that's the unregistered poster just before me), are you seriousely going to be happy you are loosing thousands of dollars???? I don't think so.
I personnaly DO download mp3s, and share them also. But when I have the money, I don't go buying blank CD's and making copies of albums when I like them. I BUY THE REAL CD. I have NO album copies, except those of foreign albums, like japanese video game music.
That was just my 2 cents.
Best Regards,
Sir Lucas S Daniels
[email protected]
Are you a complete idiot? You say 1 dollar off of every album goes to the ar****... If everyone listens to you and pirates MP3s, THEY WILL HAVE NO MONEY AT ALL, because that 1$, you took it from them by pirating!
(The following uses completely random numbers)
Say that on the gnutella network (or any other sharing software), one song from an artist gets downloaded, say, 20 times a day.
If each person that downloaded the song bought the album instead, that would be $20 a day for that artist! Going along the same line, that's $140 a week, $600 a month! If you suppose that the artist has at least 5 popular songs that are downloaded to the same amount, you can easily calculate $100 a day, $700 a week, or $3000 a month!!!!!!!
Now, place yourself in the artist's mind. You have 3 albums out, of which 5 songs are popular. You go on BearShare or KaZaA or WinMX, and look for your songs. You notice that you get around 100 hits for each song, on each different network... Here's your choices. You:
a) Get very excited at the fact that there are thousands of instances of illegal reproductions of your work on the internet, meaning you are very popular (in the illegal world)
or
b) You get very ****ed off because EACH INSTANCE OF THAT SONG ON THE NET MEANS $1 LESS IN YOUR POCKET, thus you are LOOSING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!
So, which is it going to be, "sheep" (that's the unregistered poster just before me), are you seriousely going to be happy you are loosing thousands of dollars???? I don't think so.
I personnaly DO download mp3s, and share them also. But when I have the money, I don't go buying blank CD's and making copies of albums when I like them. I BUY THE REAL CD. I have NO album copies, except those of foreign albums, like japanese video game music.
That was just my 2 cents.
Best Regards,
Sir Lucas S Daniels
[email protected]
Robyn babey...x
New member
I use to share (over 30 gb of files), but with the threat of losing my ISP, I can't afford to continue. I'm sure there are many like me, but untill a better way of protecting our identies is found this is going to be a major problem.
Rev. wing wang woo woo
New member
Actually thats completely different. The argument he is making is "lets let the people testdrive the car because if they never see it they will never buy it anyway" Record companies are simply refusing to adapt to a changing business structure. Industry's grow old and collapse. Its the nature of capitalism. If the record companies time has come, they should simply die or adapt rather than trying to hide behind all there money and lawyers. Let the bands make there music, let us hear it for free, than go to the shows, buy the shirts and cds and posters, and have that money go right to the artists who deserve it. Not to the corporate gatekeepers who the artists must presently pass through to allow themselves to be heard.
Well, your off-the-cuff reply does raise some interesting points. I'll try to respond point-by-point to make sure I don't leave you with any questions...
>RUBBISH! We've heard all these points before, >and they've been proved crap.
---Interesting...where have they been proven crap? I've seen things supporting my original post in the New York Times, on CNN, and most recently, in Wired. I don't feel any of these sources to be particularly suspect, nor biased towards either side. Wired, actually, seems to carry plenty of studies (all from RIAA and its affiliates) to the contrary, but whom can you believe? Perhaps, as you mention, it comes down to sheep following the herd. Those who can look outside the box will see there's a vast market for anyone who can accept current (modern!) marketing models and actually market in ways that make sense.
>If it was increasing income - then the artists, >music labels and all those involved in the supply >chain wouldn't be complaining would >they??????????
---Since you seem to claim expertise in logic, surely you know that the above statement is a logical fallacy. Even with its poor punctuation properly corrected, it's clear that the statement doesn't make any sense. The real point is that the record labels are whining about inflated numbers that don't reflect actual pecuniary losses. Are you trying to say that people who listen to music _don't_ go out and buy T-shirts and go to the concerts? I've been on planet earth for a while now, and that seems to be the general trend. And do you think that everyone with a copied mp3 would have paid 12-17 bucks for the CD?
No. It's just not accurate.
>And how can you compare VCR tapes to these >files.. It is a LOSSLESS medium.. ie with video >tapes, cassette tapes etc, quality is reduced >with each copy.
---They're very comparable. The issue of "lossless" is moot because for all intents and purposes, one can listen to a tape (or VHS cassette) as many times as one wishes. Yes, it wears out, but big whoop--I've got tapes I listen to that are 15 years old and they're still good enough for me. CDs wear out too--from getting scratched and from that mold that eats the surface after a decade or two. But big deal. Realistically, people's musical tastes wear out before any of the media does. Unless you're meaning 8-tracks. Those were pretty crummy. Even LPs can be playable decades after they were purchased. So for all intents and purposes it's exactly the same thing.
>ALSO, to enable each COPY it had to be physically >passed, reducing the amount of 'COPIES' possible. > There were no 'instantaneous electronic' means >to COPY the files. (I still fail to see why >everyone calls it sharing).
---Again, see the above point. Your point is just a silly, moot, ridiculous thing to try to argue. Yes, there are a tiny fraction of folks out there so anally audiophilliac that they care about the degredation of each pass on the player. But aren't those the same folks that already went out and bought the CDs the second they came out? Aren't they also the ones who play the CDs anyway because computer speakers haven't yet matched regular audio quality? The vast majority of folks couldn't care less about the slight quality difference.
>I'm sure you read all these points in some >pro-copying forum such as this one and just >decided to simply follow and believe them like a >sheep.. perhaps a touch more research and logical >thinking is in order??
---Good advice. Too bad that it's again completely inapplicable. I've gotten my information from a variety of sources, biased and non. I am a professor at a major university, and I also happen to have been a songwriter, and I currently write for a number of different print and web-based publications. I've been on the radio, and I have a very solid understanding of the issues that does not come copied out of some pro-Gnutella forum. I also don't have my head up the brown orifice of the RIAA, as you seem to. I can also spell and punctuate properly, and I'm confident that my logical skills are quite ample to participate in this forum. You, on the other hand, might want to take a remedial writing course, and refresh your critical thinking skills. I also would like to say that, while I support the copying (fine with me to call it that) of mp3s, I _don't_ do it personally. There are just 2 mp3s on my "shared" folder, both downloaded to test the technology. I support the technology because of its incredible alternative means to publish information, to reach audiences, and to share video, songs, and lyrics without having to bend over and take whatever the RIAA chooses to put up your ***. It is discraceful that we allow small, close-minded individuals to shut down a technology that offers far more than the ability to pirate copyrighted music. By your logic, you'd argue that the right of Free Speech should be removed because people use swear words or offend people from time to time. This decentralized file-sharing technology eliminates the need for a middle-man, yes, and until the middle man works out a new way to profit, they'll be upset. That's why the RIAA wants to get rid of it. Artists, songwriters, and writers should be embracing this technology--This is not a threat to artists. File-sharing is only a threat to those who, not unlike leeches, attach themselves to an artist in exchange for publicity and market-share. The RIAA didn't even initially want to return online playing royalties to the artists themselves. That's so transparent and hypocritical that I'm amazed even someone like yourself hasn't seen the light. (Of course, you seem to be hypocritical anyway, since you download mp3s but are all holier-than-thou to others about it).
Last point: Along with lots of gratuitous capitalizations, you seem to like bringing sheep into each post. Perhaps that points to other, deeper frustrations? Was there a bad experience in childhood involving sheep and file-"shearing"?
No, seriously, (had to get the pun in there somehow!) I understand the concern that people don't think carefully about an opinion before blabbing it out on a forum. But in this case, it's a very carefully thought-out and well- researched opinion that (really!) seeks to find a win-win for everyone. Hopefully, that's what we're all looking for--an ideal compromise where everyone's happy.
>RUBBISH! We've heard all these points before, >and they've been proved crap.
---Interesting...where have they been proven crap? I've seen things supporting my original post in the New York Times, on CNN, and most recently, in Wired. I don't feel any of these sources to be particularly suspect, nor biased towards either side. Wired, actually, seems to carry plenty of studies (all from RIAA and its affiliates) to the contrary, but whom can you believe? Perhaps, as you mention, it comes down to sheep following the herd. Those who can look outside the box will see there's a vast market for anyone who can accept current (modern!) marketing models and actually market in ways that make sense.
>If it was increasing income - then the artists, >music labels and all those involved in the supply >chain wouldn't be complaining would >they??????????
---Since you seem to claim expertise in logic, surely you know that the above statement is a logical fallacy. Even with its poor punctuation properly corrected, it's clear that the statement doesn't make any sense. The real point is that the record labels are whining about inflated numbers that don't reflect actual pecuniary losses. Are you trying to say that people who listen to music _don't_ go out and buy T-shirts and go to the concerts? I've been on planet earth for a while now, and that seems to be the general trend. And do you think that everyone with a copied mp3 would have paid 12-17 bucks for the CD?
No. It's just not accurate.
>And how can you compare VCR tapes to these >files.. It is a LOSSLESS medium.. ie with video >tapes, cassette tapes etc, quality is reduced >with each copy.
---They're very comparable. The issue of "lossless" is moot because for all intents and purposes, one can listen to a tape (or VHS cassette) as many times as one wishes. Yes, it wears out, but big whoop--I've got tapes I listen to that are 15 years old and they're still good enough for me. CDs wear out too--from getting scratched and from that mold that eats the surface after a decade or two. But big deal. Realistically, people's musical tastes wear out before any of the media does. Unless you're meaning 8-tracks. Those were pretty crummy. Even LPs can be playable decades after they were purchased. So for all intents and purposes it's exactly the same thing.
>ALSO, to enable each COPY it had to be physically >passed, reducing the amount of 'COPIES' possible. > There were no 'instantaneous electronic' means >to COPY the files. (I still fail to see why >everyone calls it sharing).
---Again, see the above point. Your point is just a silly, moot, ridiculous thing to try to argue. Yes, there are a tiny fraction of folks out there so anally audiophilliac that they care about the degredation of each pass on the player. But aren't those the same folks that already went out and bought the CDs the second they came out? Aren't they also the ones who play the CDs anyway because computer speakers haven't yet matched regular audio quality? The vast majority of folks couldn't care less about the slight quality difference.
>I'm sure you read all these points in some >pro-copying forum such as this one and just >decided to simply follow and believe them like a >sheep.. perhaps a touch more research and logical >thinking is in order??
---Good advice. Too bad that it's again completely inapplicable. I've gotten my information from a variety of sources, biased and non. I am a professor at a major university, and I also happen to have been a songwriter, and I currently write for a number of different print and web-based publications. I've been on the radio, and I have a very solid understanding of the issues that does not come copied out of some pro-Gnutella forum. I also don't have my head up the brown orifice of the RIAA, as you seem to. I can also spell and punctuate properly, and I'm confident that my logical skills are quite ample to participate in this forum. You, on the other hand, might want to take a remedial writing course, and refresh your critical thinking skills. I also would like to say that, while I support the copying (fine with me to call it that) of mp3s, I _don't_ do it personally. There are just 2 mp3s on my "shared" folder, both downloaded to test the technology. I support the technology because of its incredible alternative means to publish information, to reach audiences, and to share video, songs, and lyrics without having to bend over and take whatever the RIAA chooses to put up your ***. It is discraceful that we allow small, close-minded individuals to shut down a technology that offers far more than the ability to pirate copyrighted music. By your logic, you'd argue that the right of Free Speech should be removed because people use swear words or offend people from time to time. This decentralized file-sharing technology eliminates the need for a middle-man, yes, and until the middle man works out a new way to profit, they'll be upset. That's why the RIAA wants to get rid of it. Artists, songwriters, and writers should be embracing this technology--This is not a threat to artists. File-sharing is only a threat to those who, not unlike leeches, attach themselves to an artist in exchange for publicity and market-share. The RIAA didn't even initially want to return online playing royalties to the artists themselves. That's so transparent and hypocritical that I'm amazed even someone like yourself hasn't seen the light. (Of course, you seem to be hypocritical anyway, since you download mp3s but are all holier-than-thou to others about it).
Last point: Along with lots of gratuitous capitalizations, you seem to like bringing sheep into each post. Perhaps that points to other, deeper frustrations? Was there a bad experience in childhood involving sheep and file-"shearing"?
No, seriously, (had to get the pun in there somehow!) I understand the concern that people don't think carefully about an opinion before blabbing it out on a forum. But in this case, it's a very carefully thought-out and well- researched opinion that (really!) seeks to find a win-win for everyone. Hopefully, that's what we're all looking for--an ideal compromise where everyone's happy.
iloveanimals
New member
I feel relieved now that a real university professor has lend his authority to these deliberations, particularly since I happen to 'share' his opinions, or at least most of them.
I doubt if anyone, however, is very impressed with his qualifications and publishing experiences; they hardly elevate his remarks to the level of scripture. It's nice to have the ability to spell, punctuate and adhere to accepted conventions of formal grammar accurately, but that doesn't invalidate the thoughts and positions of others who don't 'share' these skills. if you're going to write extended formal essays, Dude, you might consider registration on these forums.
By the way, I can't resist one observation. Statements can't be logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is an invalid argument by which a conclusion (true or false) is reached by violating a formal rule of deduction. I trust you're not a Professor of Logic.
I doubt if anyone, however, is very impressed with his qualifications and publishing experiences; they hardly elevate his remarks to the level of scripture. It's nice to have the ability to spell, punctuate and adhere to accepted conventions of formal grammar accurately, but that doesn't invalidate the thoughts and positions of others who don't 'share' these skills. if you're going to write extended formal essays, Dude, you might consider registration on these forums.
By the way, I can't resist one observation. Statements can't be logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is an invalid argument by which a conclusion (true or false) is reached by violating a formal rule of deduction. I trust you're not a Professor of Logic.
Points well taken. No, I'm no professor of logic, nor did I intend for my remarks to sound as though one can't discuss issues without a PhD in Rhetoric. My examples were not intended to show off anything, but only to clarify that not all writers or artists share the idea that copyrighting is in their best interests. Nor are we "sheep" for our decision to support file-sharing. I was just a bit irked by the abusive tone of certain posts. I have yet to see Mr. "End of Story" really explain himself or cite specific examples of studies that support his ideas.
P.S. Sorry about the registration (or lack thereof). One, I don't usually contribute to forums, and two, I'm still a believer that only in anonymity can speech ever really be free. ;-) Check out www.freenetproject.org. Cool stuff.
P.S. Sorry about the registration (or lack thereof). One, I don't usually contribute to forums, and two, I'm still a believer that only in anonymity can speech ever really be free. ;-) Check out www.freenetproject.org. Cool stuff.