Organised P2P community

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Allright, before you moderators move towards the "close this thread" switch, let me state my question: This is not a debate on wheter or not we should legalize (or accept) pirate "P2P" (peer-to-peer/file sharing) sites like Napster.

 

My idea, on the other hand, is a subscription-based P2P system run by the people who make the media. I got the idea from all these people using socialism to argue in favour of pirate P2P sites. Now, socialism is about as far away from Napster as you can get, right?

 

Well, my question is, what about engines that you actually pay to subscribe to, like you "subscribe" to health care by paying taxes in socialist countries? I'm thinking something like Kazaa, except the people who make the media voulentarily post it on the site. Then, you pay a monthly fee to be a member, which is distributed among the artists, and then you can download as much media as you want from all the groups/artists who contribute to the site, opposed to Kazaa, which is just rip-offs giving nothing to the artists.

 

Personally, it sounds a lot more convinient than paying for an individual movie/CD at a store/site. And the amount of money you have to pay wouldn't have to be so big compared to the stuff you got (it depends on the number of media items you downloaded). As more users subscribed, more artists can post as the p2p company get more money. I'd also guess movie-makers should get a bigger share than music groups, for example, as music cots less to produce than movies.

 

What do you think of systems like the one I described? I know there are small-scaled systems like it, but what if it was the size of, say, Kazaa?

 

--------

PS: Please don't turn this into a debate on illegal P2P sites. It'll just get the thread closed;).

[Luc Solar]

The question still remains:

 

"Why pay for something you can get for free?"

 

And if someone subscribes for this p2p-thingie, he'll put the files he gets in his Kazaa shared folder and 30 minutes later the whole world has 'em.

 

We really should get our laws updated. Globally.

In my country we have a absurd situation: copying software for personal use (with the help of p2p etc.) is strictly forbidden BUT it is not a crime and you can not be punished for it. A great piece of legislation...

[munik]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

PS: Please don't turn this into a debate on illegal P2P sites. It'll just get the thread closed;).

At the risk of starting this supposed debate, would someone mind telling me about illegal p2p sites? Is this some hot topic or such? Maybe I'm not reading this right, but it seems like you are saying that peer to peer is illegal in some sense, and legal in others? I'm totally lost.

[El Sitherino]

well like many other people i use certain programs that are illegal but i end up buying the music cd, or the software, or the movies. i download them and see what they are like. to see if i want to get them if not i just delete the file. but after i do buy the dvd's like i did with bebop. i downloaded the video file so that i could make avatars without having to take so many screenshots. also because my parents are divorced so instead of buying a second set of bebop dvd's i said ill have the dvd's at my moms and since i bought them i ll download the episodes if i wish to watch them at my dads. see i use it legitimately. now of course many people don't and that's the problem. people have this greed. like it was said before why pay for what you can get for free? well pay for it so you don't get arrested for one reason. second if everyone gets things for free it's going to indirectly cost someone their job. or their life possibly. ok the guy at the oh say logo's whatever. decides to pirate some photoshop stuff. he causes some people at adobe to lose their job because adobe isnt making enough money. one of the people that got fired is the only one working. he/ she goes looking for another job meanwhile they are paying for a kid in college, their home ownership bills, their other kid, their car, and their food. they are running low on the wellfare money. eventually they starve to death. bam there goes someone elses valuable customer that spends alot of money paying for some other workers at another business area. those people have to be let go. they fall into the same cycle. and it will continue on like that. ( ok maybe they wont die but they will most likely drop one of the payments and that will still make the business lose money)

[Luc Solar]

Originally posted by munik

At the risk of starting this supposed debate, would someone mind telling me about illegal p2p sites? Is this some hot topic or such? Maybe I'm not reading this right, but it seems like you are saying that peer to peer is illegal in some sense, and legal in others? I'm totally lost.

 

p2p can't really be banned as such. It's just a *technique* to share your files, pretty much like e-mail...except this is more organized.

 

One big question is this: Are the admins of a hub responsible for the stuff that people share there?

 

At the moment I don't think they are. On the other hand, we have legislation that will come into force by the end of the year, and then *Sharing* copyrighted material will become illegal. On top of that we got 200 other countries who all have differing legislation (or non at all) on the subject. Without a global approach the people who fight to uphold the copyrights are doomed.

 

Remember what happened to Kazaa? They got shut down. The next day they continued their "work" in country 2. The authorities of country 1 can't do jack.

 

I'm sure everyone agrees on the "fact" that this whole p2p-Kazaa or (whatever) deal is morally highly questionable. The idea as such is great and legal...but it's just like CD-R disks...who is naive enough to believe that people don't use 'em (99%) to illegal purposes? (Exactly how many text documents can you store on a single CD? 140.000? )

 

I'm tempted to start a debate about piratism, but this thread is not the place for that.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Well, Cd-r disks can't be distributed as widely, and selling them is a huge crime (in Scandinavia it carries a +-$5 000 buck fine).

 

The question still remains:

"Why pay for something you can get for free?"

Well, I'll answer with your answer:

We really should get our laws updated. Globally.

Let's say a game company sells a game for $50 bucks. If one person downloads it, the company loses $50 bucks. If only ten people steal it, the company loses $500 bucks. If a houndred people steal it, the company loses $5000 bucks. If a thousand people steal it, the company loses $50 000 bucks. And normally, well above 10 000 people steal games..

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Well, Cd-r disks can't be distributed as widely, and selling them is a huge crime (in Scandinavia it carries a +-$5 000 buck fine).

 

 

Well, I'll answer with your answer:

 

Let's say a game company sells a game for $50 bucks. If one person downloads it, the company loses $50 bucks. If only ten people steal it, the company loses $500 bucks. If a houndred people steal it, the company loses $5000 bucks. If a thousand people steal it, the company loses $50 000 bucks. And normally, well above 10 000 people steal games..

its ok i already addressed it.

[munik]

So, because p2p is used sometimes for piracy, it should not be allowed? There are legitimate uses for sharing files, just because some people share illegally that shouldn't mean the whole p2p system is at fault. People use motor vehicles in felony crimes, that does not mean there is fault in the vehicles.

 

Also, with Dagohban's statement about financial loss from theft. With me, the files that I get from others (that I know are illegal) are things that I wouldn't buy. Ever. If there was a movie I wanted to go watch, I would pay to see it at the theatre. All the porn I download, I would never buy. The games...yep, wouldn't buy them. The only reason I download them is out of curiousity. I wouldn't pay $5 and spend 2 hours for any of the movies I dl. I wouldn't pay $40-$50 for any of these games. So, what I am saying is how can it they consider it a loss of money if they were never going to recieve this money in the first place? I know that not everyone does it like me, but I'm pointing out that all acts of piracy can't be considered as a loss of money.

 

And, as for the subscription stuff. It wouldn't be p2p then. It'd just be another method for paying for things that get pirated. If I look to dl some movie file, and I find it, while I wait I usually check out what else this guy is sharing. Would I subscribe to a system that has some dudes homemade porn on it? Or some lame ass flash movie he made? What if both the porn and the flash were of excellent quality, would I still want to pay for someones stuff that he was never gonna sell anyway? p2p is just that, me sharing my stuff with you. Just because people also share pirated things has no bearing on the system itself. If you walk over to my house to smoke some dope with me, is the method of transportation (walking to my house) at fault because I had something illegal to share with you?

 

Yep, p2p is an easy way to distribute pirated software. Before p2p, piracy wasn't as widespread, or rather it wasn't as well publicized. Before air transportation, it took longer to smuggle things across borders. Did they do away with air transportation? No, they just worked harder on stopping people from smuggling.

[Luc Solar]

Good points, munik.

 

Another funny thing: did you know that Windows cd's weren't copy protected before? Why, you ask.

 

Here's *a* reason why: with the help of people copying their OS they got a dominating position on the market. Everybody uses Windows and most software won't run without it. Think about all the compatibility issues - You want some application, you need to buy the 3 other ones too in order to be able to run it >>> $$$

 

So piracy, in a way, benefitted Microsoft. They didn't lose any money but got a monopoly on the market. That's worth a hell of a lot more than the few $ they get from selling OS's.

 

I don't know what the deal is in the States, but in Finland downloading MP3's for personal use is perfectly legal. Copying programs, however, is illegal BUT can not be penalized ( ) .

 

Who's to draw the line? This seems so artifical and silly: download a MP3 and no-one has a problem with it. But what if you DL a music video = the same sound track with a moving picture? How about if you have that music video within a simple Program that lets you f.ex. choose by clicking your mouse which of Britney's music videos you want to see?

 

Someone needs to make these rules understandable and rational.

 

Another example: making a back-up of your program is legal and the legislator has expressly said that this right can not be taken away from us with contracts (EULA's and such). Now..on the other hand we're getting (the EU) new rules that forbid people from circumventing copy protection mechanisms (or sharing advice or apps that help you do that).

 

So you got a right to make a backup copy, a right that no evil corporation can take away from you. But if the corporation puts any kind of copy protection on their cd, no matter how ridiculously easy it might be to "crack" it, you are not allowed to use the copying-right the legislator has specifically given you.

 

Circumventing copy protection is illegal as such period

 

This whole deal sucks big time.

 

Dagobahn Eagle said: Well, Cd-r disks can't be distributed as widely, and selling them is a huge crime (in Scandinavia

 

 

I'm not sure I understand? Selling pirated games is illegal, is that what you mean? (true, of course)

In Finland every store sells Cd-r disks. 10 x 700mb CD's costs less than 10 €/$. It's so cheap, it's crazy!

 

I'd love to ramble on but gtg..

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Yes, of course I meant selling pirated games:D.

 

Windows is different than music and game companies. Because let's say you get a pirate Windows version. Fine, you don't pay for that version, but you need to pay for all the copyright protected updates, don't you, or you'll be stuck with an old version of Windows. And when you get a new computer, you (pay for) Windows for it, right?

 

Games, let's say AoK, are different. If you get a pirate version of AoK, you've got AoK. You won't be buying any new updates or anything, for these are all free. This way, ES doesn't make any money on you doing it.

 

If you want to burn a copy of your game onto a CD to work as a backup if the CD gets cracked, fine, do so.

 

Who's to draw the line?

Simple: Let the music companies draw the line, and convince more of them that if they don't really need the money, fine, give it away for free on their site or at a controlled "legal" P2P site.

 

ALSO, when a product doesn't sell anymore, the company should release it for free IMO, as they won't hardly make more money on it anyway.

 

I foresee the imminent closing of this thread

[ZBomber]

Originally posted by Luc Solar

Good points, munik.

 

Another funny thing: did you know that Windows cd's weren't copy protected before? Why, you ask.

 

Here's *a* reason why: with the help of people copying their OS they got a dominating position on the market. Everybody uses Windows and most software won't run without it. Think about all the compatibility issues - You want some application, you need to buy the 3 other ones too in order to be able to run it >>> $$$

 

So piracy, in a way, benefitted Microsoft. They didn't lose any money but got a monopoly on the market. That's worth a hell of a lot more than the few $ they get from selling OS's.

 

I don't know what the deal is in the States, but in Finland downloading MP3's for personal use is perfectly legal. Copying programs, however, is illegal BUT can not be penalized ( ) .

 

Who's to draw the line? This seems so artifical and silly: download a MP3 and no-one has a problem with it. But what if you DL a music video = the same sound track with a moving picture? How about if you have that music video within a simple Program that lets you f.ex. choose by clicking your mouse which of Britney's music videos you want to see?

 

Someone needs to make these rules understandable and rational.

 

Another example: making a back-up of your program is legal and the legislator has expressly said that this right can not be taken away from us with contracts (EULA's and such). Now..on the other hand we're getting (the EU) new rules that forbid people from circumventing copy protection mechanisms (or sharing advice or apps that help you do that).

 

So you got a right to make a backup copy, a right that no evil corporation can take away from you. But if the corporation puts any kind of copy protection on their cd, no matter how ridiculously easy it might be to "crack" it, you are not allowed to use the copying-right the legislator has specifically given you.

 

Circumventing copy protection is illegal as such period

 

This whole deal sucks big time.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand? Selling pirated games is illegal, is that what you mean? (true, of course)

In Finland every store sells Cd-r disks. 10 x 700mb CD's costs less than 10 €/$. It's so cheap, it's crazy!

 

I'd love to ramble on but gtg..

 

Dude, I'm moving to Finland!