Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media

Filesharing Traffic Drops After RIAA Threats 635

bryan writes "According to CNN, facing the threat of lawsuits from a music industry trade group, fewer people are using online filesharing applications to swap songs. Internet audience measurement service Nielsen Net Ratings said traffic on Kazaa, the leading filesharing platform, fell 15 percent in the week ended July 6 from the previous week. It was during that prior week, on June 25, that the Recording Industry Association of America said it would track down the heaviest users of "peer-to-peer" services like Kazaa and sue them for damages of up to $150,000 per copyright violation." This follows earlier reports, from the filesharing companies themselves, that traffic was actually increasing.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Filesharing Traffic Drops After RIAA Threats

Comments Filter:
  • That's why truly anonymous P2P apps [sourceforge.net] are the only way.

    Please mod me up - we need help with this project. Please get in touch if you can code, or have ideas, or comments.

  • Re:CDRs? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @05:18PM (#6437399) Homepage
    "Well probably have a better idea of whats going on from CDR sales figures."

    Don't know if you're trolling or not...but is it really that hard to find a way to use CDRs aside from burning pirated material? How can you possibly tell if the usage of an online service has increased or decreased based on the amount of blank media sold of which only ONE of the many uses is to backup pirated files?

  • Re:Unreliable stats (Score:5, Informative)

    by Genjurosan ( 601032 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @05:20PM (#6437435)
    BINGO! You hit the nail on the HEAD.

    AAA Predicted that 37.4 million Americans planned to travel over the holiday. --With the US population roughly at 291 million, that's about 13%..

    For backup of my stats:

    US Population Clock:

    http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

    Travel States: (search for July 4th on this google cached page)

    http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:vb3Zo5s2UHo J: www.tia.org/Travel/tiupdate_current.asp+july+4th+t ravel+statistics&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
  • by km790816 ( 78280 ) <wqhq3gx02 AT sneakemail DOT com> on Monday July 14, 2003 @05:28PM (#6437541)
    P2P's little secret [com.com]

    Interesting quote from the head of Freenet [sourceforge.net]:
    Ian Clarke, the project's inventor, said in an interview that the RIAA's recent legal actions and threats of additional lawsuits have heightened interest in Freenet. "The Freenet site has seen a threefold increase in Web traffic since the RIAA announcement," Clarke said. "We've received more donations to the project in the last week than we had in the past two months before that."
  • by Arslan ibn Da'ud ( 636514 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @05:32PM (#6437589) Homepage
    Slyck [slyck.com] keeps weekly stats on
    filesharing usage...here's the usage statistics today:

    FastTrack 3,525,734
    iMesh 1,175,244
    eDonkey 770,032
    Overnet 458,752
    MP2P 199,214

    These stats have actually remained fairly constant for a couple of
    weeks now. Back in May there was a lot of fluctuation on the EDonkey
    vs Overnet, and FastTrack was around 4.5M. I suppose it dropped
    because college students went home for the summer.

    At any rate, Slyck's stats have noted no increase or decrease in
    filesharing in the last two weeks. So the media hype (both ways)
    seems to be just that...hype.

    Move along; nothing to see here.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 14, 2003 @05:34PM (#6437605)
    I received this from an individual who works at Time Warner. Its contents are scary.

    --

    As many of you have probably read or heard, the Recording Industry
    Association of America is engaged in a very public battle against
    individuals using peer-to-peer Internet programs to swap copyrighted music
    files. Their latest tactic, which they announced recently, is to identify
    people who have made large numbers of songs available for uploading via P2P,
    and then to sue them for copyright infringement. Some of these people will
    undoubtedly be Road Runner customers. The purpose of this memo is to
    describe for you the process that the RIAA is undertaking, and how we plan
    to deal with it.

    The RIAA has begun to troll the major P2P networks to collect the Internet
    Protocol (IP) addresses for those individuals who are offering large numbers
    of songs for uploading. These IP addresses are then tracked back to the
    ISPs that control them. The RIAA then must issue subpoenas to the ISPs,
    demanding that they turn over identifying information on the holders of the
    accounts assigned to the IP addresses (i.e., the customer name, address,
    telephone number and email address).

    In the first three days of the RIAA's campaign, we have received subpoenas
    directed at 18 customers in 4 divisions. Once the RIAA's campaign hits full
    stride, we expect to receive several hundred subpoenas per month.

    When we receive a subpoena, we will send a letter to the customer in
    question notifying him/her that we are required to disclose his/her
    identifying information to the RIAA. We will also provide the customer with
    a copy of the subpoena, which includes contact information for the RIAA's
    attorney. A copy of our standard letter is attached to this memo.

    Most of the flow in responding to these subpoenas will be handled, at least
    initially, by the Law Department. Road Runner has developed a tool that
    allows us to tie the IP addresses to the specific customers and determine
    their identifying information. The process is not perfect, and requires us
    to get manual confirmation from the divisions' complaint coordinators before
    the notice letters are sent to the customers. It is important that
    confirmation is received promptly in order for us to provide advance notice
    to our customers.

    The letters to the subscribers will be signed by _____, who runs our
    subpoena compliance program here in Stamford. To the extent letter
    recipients want to contact TWC, we expect them to contact _____. If your
    divisions receive phone calls or correspondence on this issue, please direct
    the customers to ___________.

    Thank you for your help with this. As always, if you have any questions
    about any of this, please feel free to get in touch with us at any time.
  • by JudgeFurious ( 455868 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @05:35PM (#6437621)
    And you go for it man. I'm happy with the quality of the songs on iTunes. That's me and obviously different people have different standards.

    I also have DSL and I'd be ok with the file sizes if they gave me an option of getting the WAV instead of the AAC but the AAC doesn't suck so I'm good. Hell since I'm mostly about downloading a track or two per album (and not always the "hit single" either) I'd even be willing to go a buck fifty to get the better quality file. Now a lot of people wouldn't but again, that's me.

    I respect what you're saying but I think that based on the number of people who've been downloading MP3's and the price that iTunes is asking for individual tracks that they're going to appeal to plenty of people selling it the way they're doing. The Dial-ups are going to require the file size be small enough to at least get in a night and so many people out there are ok with the MP3/AAC kind of quality already that it will be a non-factor to most.
  • by poptones ( 653660 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @05:43PM (#6437694) Journal
    Traffic in all the "relevant" USENET groups is also noticeably up. According to this report [newsadmin.com] some of the groups have tripled and quadrupled in traffic.
  • 'LOSE', NOT 'LOOSE' (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 14, 2003 @05:55PM (#6437796)
    looser!
  • Re:Excellent point (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kwil ( 53679 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @06:02PM (#6437847)
    Here's another point.. ..everybody gets up in arms about calling it theft when it's not.

    If we want to be perfectly honest, let's stop calling it sharing -- it's not that either, it's distributing.

    If you want to get really picky, it's making available for distribution.
  • by nelsonal ( 549144 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @06:14PM (#6437943) Journal
    Neilson Net Ratings is the tv ratings company trying to expand to the new media, it's software that tracks web usage. Sites visited and probably time spent, I don't know what else. They pay you to use it, the pay might be close to a budget ISP info. Why anyone would share anything with a big rating company tracking their moves is beyond me.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 14, 2003 @06:15PM (#6437952)
    They probably base it on the homepage hits for the filesharing service. Because Nielsen measures website hits i.e Each Filesharing App normally defaults to displaying the respective homepage inside the App. So measuring the number of unique hits against Kazaa.com gives a fair indication of the number of users running the Kazaa application. (This however neglects to take into account Kazaa Lite, etc.)

    So while this isn't a truly accurate method, it does give an indication of usage.
  • Re:Unreliable stats (Score:3, Informative)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @06:17PM (#6437965) Journal
    I don't have any direct numbers that can detail just how many of these 291 million Americans are users of p2p. Let's say it's 50%, then wouldn't the drop be in usage be more like 6.5%? -/+ a few points? I'm sure there is a /.er out there that can help us out.

    Okay, the "real" statistical problems here...

    IF those people using file-sharing apps form an essentially random cross-section of the population, and if none of those people had any way to engage in their normal filesharing activity while on vacation, then you would see the same percentage drop in filesharing as people going away for the long weekend - though only for the time they stayed away from home, so we have effectively a factor of 3/7ths on top of the raw number of vacationers.

    (Quick summary of the above - under idealized conditions, a 13% travel rate that week would translate into a 5.6% drop in filesharing over the course of that week).

    I see it as likely that the incidence of filesharers does NOT count as a random selection from the general US population. For the most obvious confounding factor, we could fairly consider both "travel" and "owns a decent computer with a broadband connection" as luxuries heavily dependant on income. This would cause the numbers as presented to increase, in that if a higher percentage of filesharers went on vacation than nonfilesharers.

    For another confounding factor, looking at usage patterns over so short a period of time (for measuring social change) as a week carries very little weight. Large short-term fluctuations can occur in almost any measured variable. As an example, last week I had pizza for five meals, about three meals more than in a normal week. Can we attribute that to the RIAA's threats, or just a coincidence?


    In order for the RIAA to validly claim their threats "caused" the drop in filesharing, they would need to somehow undo their threat and watch levels return to normal. And repeat that a number of times, with consistent results. And even then, they could only call it "likely" that their threats caused the changes.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 14, 2003 @06:25PM (#6438042)
    How about this?
    The eye has always elicited awe from anyone who has studied its structure carefully. The clear tissue of the cornea curves just the right amount, the iris expands and contracts to modulate the amount of light entering, the lens adjusts to distance, so that the optimal quantity of light focuses exactly on the surface of the retina, etc. It seems to be so carefully crafted that it is hard to imagine how its design could be improved upon. In the 19th century this conviction reached its zenith in William Paley's Natural Theology (1802), which took the eye as the basis for an argument for the existence of an all-wise, all-powerful Intelligent Designer. A closer look at the vertebrate eye, however, may lead one to a different conclusion. Blood vessels and nerves traverse the inside of the retina, and then dive through an opening in the retinal wall on their way to the optic nerve. This creates a blind spot at their point of exit, and some distortion as photons have to make their way through the tangle of blood vessels and nerves before striking the retinal wall. It may not be a large distortion, but the vertebrate eye is clearly not designed as well as it could be. This arrangement also fails to anchor the retina securely to the inside of the eye, so that retinal detachment sometimes occurs (e.g., in boxers). The "backwards" wiring of vertebrate eyes is a good example of (i) bad luck and (ii) historical constraints. Hundreds of millions of years ago the layer of cells that happened to become light sensitive in our ancestors was positioned "incorrectly," but because it provided a selective advantage, it was retained and evolved into the modern backwards-wired vertebrate eye. Even though a better design existed in an abstract "morphospace" (i.e., the space of biologically possible forms), once evolution of the eye started down a certain path, backing up (i.e., going back to a relatively less advantageous form) and starting over, became impossible. Squid eyes, on the other hand, are designed more sensibly, with nerves running on the outside, reducing distortion and securing the retina so that it cannot detach. Were squid to take up boxing, one would see far fewer prematurely terminated careers due to detached retinae.
    A simple google search turned up this paper [lmu.edu]
    I'll leave it as an exercise for the readers to find a reference for marsupial pouches.
  • by carpe_noctem ( 457178 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @06:34PM (#6438115) Homepage Journal
    Until iTunes music store starts to carry music that is at least -somewhat- off the beaten path, I'm not going to subscribe. Here is a brief summary of my last iTunes store experience:

    1 Hrm...iTunes music store. 0.99$ sounds about right. Been meaning to pick up that new autechre album, anyways.
    2. Search "autechre": returns 0 results.
    3. Hey, that's a bummer. Lets see if they've got anything else.
    4. Search "boards of canada": 0 results.
    5. wtf
    6. Search "aphex twin": 0 results.
    7. wtf * 2
    8. Ok fuck this. Preferences->Deactivate iTunes music store.

    Maybe this has changed since last time I was on, but the selection sucks. Maybe autechre and boards of canada might be considered 'obscure', but aphex is on a major label and is quite well known. Until the iTunes store evolves from yet another place to buy eminem's music, I'm not putting any money into it.
  • Re:udpp2p (Score:4, Informative)

    by Geekenstein ( 199041 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @06:51PM (#6438217)
    As a past and present freenet user, I have to disagree. The main problem with Freenet is that it relies so heavily on people who claim they will run permanent nodes. Far from the promise of consistent, anonymous storage, you're lucky if you can still retrieve all the pieces of a large file within a week of its publication. For small files or recently introduced files, you get pretty good results. Just don't expect to get anything relatively old. "Permanent" nodes come and go way too often, even with the admittedly very cool file correction protocol that reassembles missing pieces.
  • Re:udpp2p (Score:3, Informative)

    by dasmegabyte ( 267018 ) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Monday July 14, 2003 @07:03PM (#6438304) Homepage Journal
    The latest version of freenet I downloaded doesn't even have an option for permanent nodes; i thought it got phased out for this very reason!
  • Re:Reverse (Score:3, Informative)

    by ReTay ( 164994 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @07:39PM (#6438535)
    At a guess they are not covering the correct networks? I have see one or two with high amounts of traffic.
    Of cource you could try
    www.earthstation5,com
    The RIAA can't find you and it is free.
  • by JudgeFurious ( 455868 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @07:40PM (#6438540)
    twitter

    I'm sure that probably a lot of music hasn't made it to iTunes yet that people are looking for. How can it not be? The sheer volume of stuff people want is incredible and hopefully it will all (or at least mostly) make it on there.

    I think the thing to keep in mind is that yes, no commercial company can measure up to the file sharing networks RIGHT NOW but they're relatively new and have to take a much different approach to assembling their catalog than Napster and Kazaa did. The upside to this is that by doing it "by the book" they might be around 5 years from now and making a profit.

    How can something that isn't even finished yet be obsolete? Before you judge them to be completely devoid of merit let them run for a while and take into account what they have to go through to make this music available in this manner.

    iTunes probably works well for me because I'm not a big audiophile. I've got a lot of music by many peoples standards but my collection is probably tiny compared to many others. Much of the older stuff that I like (like the Beatles music) I already owned on CD's before Napster appeared so I don't feel a lot of need to go looking for it. Should I need it in the future though I'm sure it'll make it onboard.
  • by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @07:48PM (#6438584) Homepage
    One cannot *steal* software,movies or music. They are an infinitely reproducable thing. Otherwise, something like Kazaa would not really work.

    Seriously. No one calls "patent infringment" "patent, stealing", no one calls "trademark infringement" "trademark stealing".

    Copyright infringement isn't stealing either, though they can both be independently illegal. The difference here is that the copyright holder doesn't lose his rights. His exclusivity is infringed upon, but nothing is taken.

    If people are going to insist on analogizing it to something else, I would suggest TRESPASSING. If I put my foot in your yard, I've trespassed. But you still have your yard; you just aren't enjoying it exclusively.

    Anyone who calls copyright infringement "stealing" has an agenda, and shouldn't be trusted.

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...