Comments on: STUDY: Only 1% of BitTorrent Files are “Non-Infringing”

By: MasterSidious

MasterSidious — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:25:55 +0000

Yo, what’s that nigga’s R-Squared?!?

Sid

By: T Verio

T Verio — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 07:34:32 +0000

“Copyright holders are going to love this one.”

Miss the point much?
Let’s fix that, shall we:
“Oh everyone is going to love this one”

By: Scary Devil Monastery

Scary Devil Monastery — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:17:23 +0000

@Chris

a) 14% “not classified” turning into “99% infringing” tells me the people doing the survey did indeed fail statistics class.

b) Bit Torrent “sites” these days carry neither content nor tools necessary for downloading. Any legislation allowing a bittorrent site to be shut down would by necessity mean that I could shut you down for even mentioning the word “Bit torrent”, “spineless”, or “shit”.

c) Any legislation allowing the above, aside from it’s disturbing effect on every non-bittorrent site on the internet, would require multilateral global legislation. Which would in turn allow Iran, Russia and China to make demands of the US and EU on what sort of web page content were to be available.

d) Aside from “ordinary” bittorrent, I2P, OFF Brightnets, and Stealthnet are already out there, waiting to take over once the current p2p-model goes obsolete. Which fact has rendered your solution completely meaningless already.

To sum it up, the spineless bastard, and morally offensive weasel in this gathering would rather be the one who decided to allow global cencorship mainlined by China, Iran, and the RIAA/MPAA.

And that means you, when you bark for abolishing human rights as the solution in order to clamp down on bittorrent use/abuse, are the worse offender by far.

By: juser

juser — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 04:53:31 +0000

It’s a matter of perspective. It used to be that art music and literature could enter the public domain between 20-50 – 70 years now it’s 120.
The person who created it gone; the corporation and the estate will still be milking the corpse long after the creator is passed. Robbing you of your cultural heritage and adding another monthly fee to your pile of monthly fees.

It’s piracy on both sides.

By: D.AN

D.AN — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:02:47 +0000

“… 1021 files is a lot more than is needed to have an accurate survey.”

Accurate survey? Try at least 2000 people for an accurate survey. But this is about files, so 20000 is minimal for even some accuracy.

“Bit Torrent sites should be shut down, period. Everyone knows that the vast majority of what is downloaded is illegal.”

Supposedly this “everyone” comes entirely from the pro-copyright side: imbeciles.

“This country is too full of spineless pieces of shit (like most of the people who’ve commented) who feel like they are entitled to other peoples hard work w/o paying for it.”

Ha. Indeed your utterly nonsensical rambling comes solely from biased sampling. It looks like you will need to take that statistics class.

By: Drew Wilson

Drew Wilson — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:42:00 +0000

Just like the rest of you pro-copyright maximalists. The best offence is a weak insult. It’s one reason why few take people like you seriously because many of you act like spoiled children.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 01:58:33 +0000

DDarkley….take a statistics class. 1021 files is a lot more than is needed to have an accurate survey.

Bit Torrent sites should be shut down, period. Everyone knows that the vast majority of what is downloaded is illegal.

This country is too full of spineless pieces of shit (like most of the people who’ve commented) who feel like they are entitled to other peoples hard work w/o paying for it.

By: Komo Woods

Komo Woods — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:02:28 +0000

WOw, should be interesting to see how that turns out.

RT
http://www.web-privacy.cz.tc

By: DDarkley

DDarkley — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:15:26 +0000

Only 1021 files in the sample?? That’s pretty weak…

By: Sunsneezer

Sunsneezer — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:42:36 +0000

How exactly did it get from “14% could not classify ” to “99% infringing files” ?