Gnutella: now even more freeloaders than ever before!
 

When running bearshare I only get 600-900 gigabyte with 2000-2400 nodes. There GOT to be done something about these freeloaders.

Wrongly moved post
 

This was a general posting about gnutella net originally posted in in general gnutella group. Just because I happened to mention bear share they moved it? Stupid moderators. I promise not to mention any clients next time I post there.

Re: Wrongly moved post
 

Then you could politely ask for it to be moved back instead of insulting me. It looked like your comment was specific to BearShare, so I moved it.

besides, bearshare and freeloader seem to go together

(I couldn't resist)

ANOTHER COMMENT
 

Init great to be anonymous when you want to be!

Re: ANOTHER COMMENT
 

Yeah, especially when you got something stupid to say. :p
BearShare is a client not a network. BearShare has no more freeloaders then another client running on the Gnutella network, because they are all running on the same network.

Re: Gnutella: now even more freeloaders than ever before!
 

Because of the threatening letters from people's ISP, people that used to share are becoming freeloads.

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.....:confused:

Freeloading
 

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.

There is still hope, the next generation of P2P programs will be decentralized and anonymous. Hopefully it will not be too long before they are usable on a large scale.

Unbelievable
 

Sorry but I couldn't let this pass.

Here you are, advocating a program which enables the copying (yes copying - not sharing, you are keeping your own copy) of copyrighted material, original purchased by someone else.. and you're calling others freeloaders!!

WAKE UP!! Despite this supposed religion of uneducated morons who believe that all musicians / software makers / movie makers are evil, money hungry, we rule the world, warlords and don't deserve to be protected by copyright laws.. YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW.. end of story!! The reason Napster has failed is because IT IS BREAKING THE LAW!!

And please don't state that you are not copying any 'copyright' material. Why are you all so keen to push for a completely decentralised, anonymous client.. BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW!!

Look, I use it as well and admit to the fact, but I'm not overcome by some stupid dillusional belief that we all deserve to have this music / movies / software for free.. I admit it.. I am breaking the law!!

GET WITH IT BUD - YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE!

Its kind of strange, after those articles came out and I tried gnutella, there were very few people downloading from me (it was shocking, what happened to the freeloaders!!?!?!), by now people probably came back but as downloaders rather then uploaders. It almost seemed like the network was slow for a moment there.

Decentralized and anonymous? Things wont get better until we no longer have to be anonymous, or hide our identity. Hopefully the future will be about reputation, because that is something that is more important to artists musicians programmers writers and others in the creative arts. This way artists can sell their work through gnutella and gain a reputation and then have redistributors (in the form of gnutella clients) bidding to redistribute and sell their work because of its popularity or need.

No one here in my honest opinion is arguing that by distributing copyright material that they are not breaking the law, no reason to call people names. No one said laws are perfect either, or are not corrupted, so lets not leave that to assumption.

Copyright law as used to control the distribution of information is wrong, no matter what that information be, it is no better then preventing someone from giving a speech about corrupt politicians, or about problems in politics. Look at where this law has landed people like Dimitry whom to this day is still sitting in jail, for being an owner of a software company in russia and having written the software that decrypts Adobes format. What happens he comes to the USA gives a speech about their encryption and he gets arrested by the FBI, all in the name of copyright. The australian government had someone remove their book about government corruption from the book shelves that showed evidence in the form of government documents that were copyright by the government, and the government had those books removed because he violated their copyrights. Their laws in that reguard are more strict then ours, but ours is heading that direction.

We know that bearshare has the largest users base, and limewire arguebly a close second. If freeloaders are evenly distributed amongst the clients, then of course BearShare would have the most freeloaders, is that bearshares fault? No, you cant blame bearshare so much for that. Its possible for bearshare to contribute to freeloaders, but its possible for any client to do this, in what way would bearshare do to facilitate freeloaders more so then other clients?

Caused,

I completely agree that copyright law shouldn't be used to restrict the distibution of valid and useable INFORMATION. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Copyright Law is primarily aimed at prohibiting the illegal copying and reproduction of PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. Nothing to do with information. Music, Videos, Films, Software etc are all products - created, developed, and distirbuted by certain entities who have every right to defend their product or service.

If it weren't for trademark, copyright, or patent laws, what incentive would there be to produce them? If entities couldn't profit from them, why produce them??

Sure some musicians may not care about making money from their releases, but lets be honest, 99% of them do. They do it for a living for crying out loud. What right so we have to reduce their income.. NONE!

As much as software companies are seen to be 'evil, profit making, animals' theres no way we would have the technology produced by them today if these laws didnt exist. There would be no incentive to produce them.

The point I was trying to make that comments such as this 'freeloaders' nonsense is incredibly hypocritical as almost everyone using this software are obtaining copyrighted material, making them FREELOADERS!!

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt!!! WRONG!

Say it's 2010 and every song is distributed via gnutella V30.5

Distribution is free. Now every punk band out there is making music and spewing it everywhere hoping to become famous.

No problem, you filter the crap and only get the elevator music that you like so much.

Now you find out your favorite elevator band is in town, so you go pay $2,500 for scalped tickets and the song writers get big bucks. They have to work for their money, darn it all!

Record corporations no longer exist and thus the black hole that sucks all the artists money are no more.

Its a nice world in 2010.

Oh, did I mention the IRS is gone and you no longer need a inventory number (SS#) to live your life?

umm, yeah... right.

great argument there.

really valid point

:rolleyes:

Not quite. First off, its not illegal to reproduce or copy products and services. Its illegal to redistribute copies or reproductions. As a matter of a fact the "fair use" is a big part of copyright law, that is we are allowed to make copies and reproductions of copyright material that we own, but we are just not allowed to redistribute them.

Next software programs are instructions, the same as if I wrote a cook book with instructions in how to make food, or a book on instructions on how to do mathematics to solve problems, the diffrence is that the computer is the one who following these instructions. Instructions are information on how to do things.

Music Videos and Film (herein after entertainment), are indirect ways of communicating ways of thinking (instructions in how to think about things). Final Fantasy the movie for example, conveys many ideas, one of the main ones was that of not over reacting, because the general of that movie had lost his family and was so angry he wanted to destroy the invaders and not listening to reason that his actions would result in the destruction of the earth. Many movies try to express these things. Music also is used to express things like emotions and messages, like anger or depression (rock, alternative), or not to screw with people (rap), classic music is most notible for the emotion it portrays.

There is one part of copyrights that holds stronger then the rest and that of visual uniqueness, like the copyright of Mickey Mouse for example. But then again, visual appearance is also an expression, you can make a character look cute and innocent, or you can make them look ugly and mean, in that way they are indirectly controlling these expressions via copyright, the reality of the matter is a mouse is a mouse, there is diffrent ways to draw/distort a mouse but eventually they look similar or dont look like a mouse at all.

The expresses of ideas, instructions, emotional state and many others, are all the expression of information. So copyright law may be limited to particular kinds of information but that does not mean it is not to do with information.

Admittedly words like "information" were not necesarily the basis of copyright law, but neither were words like products and services, you will find terminology like "good will" to be used often, which is to do with the fact that the author allowed their work to be "public" but to have their work protected from preditory printing presses that will reproduce and redistribute their work with out payment.

The idea is almost Darwinistic, in that the introduction of a foriegn animal (printing presses in the case of copyright) into an ecosystem will cause many species to die and the over all ecosystem will have to rebalance itself, except rather then let these new animals go wild and alter the ecosystem they decided to preserve the other animals by controling the foreign ones. But as the captilist say, the market will work itself out, that is if they let the problem alter the land scape eventually it will rebalance itself and a solution to the problems will arise. But again since copyright law only worked to surpress the problem (not get rid of it), its only coming to pass that eventually the land scape will change. Just because progress doesnt benefit you, doesnt mean its going to stop because you slap a few laws down, again surpression just means its going to happen in the back ground. Gnutella is just that, its the thing that was surpressed and now has become so easy to do and there is no feeling of guilt or remorse in copying and distributing something, definetly the feeling is not the same as breaking into someones house and stealing from them, and you will never see people treat it as such as some people would like.

That is just the thing, there is other ways in which to earn money (contrasted to the word "profit") for your work besides having to call out the national guard to control peoples distribution of information. The biggest advantage that individuals will have, will be first releases. If you are a reputable content creator, then people could bid to distribute your work. When they get your work they in turn sell it to others who will redistribute it, and on and on again until the work has been distributed to all who want it and the price they are willing to pay for it. The competition prevents corruption (like that from media giants), because if someone gets to greedy, they will find that no one wants to work with them, both the content creators and the consumers.

This can be done through networks like Gnutella, if you add a pay to download feature, mixed with bidding. A reputible writer could create a book, and before releasing the book, have his computer inform other computers via a gnutella like network, that he has a new book and looking for distributors. Many of these systems will know that he produces a great seller, that is if were one of the first to get a hold of his work, they could sell it to several people through the gnutella like network. There fore many of these systems will bid to be amongst the first wave to download his book, and willing to pay high prices. The author doesnt have to choose one system to redistribute his work, he can take the top bidders and based upon his bandwidth send it to them, after they download his work, they in turn start informing other systems that they now have his work for sale, those systems will also be able to inform consumer systems. Eventually what happens is that the people who are willing to pay the highest prices will be the first to get a hold of the book, the people who dont want to be a high price will be among the last to recieve his book, those who want it for free will probably be the ones waiting the longest and they may have to put up with advertisement getting it for free and all.

Yeah, but lets not leave it unsaid that they also dont have a right to control my mind, or extensions to my mind like my hard drive, or the right to control the conversations/exchanges of information I have with other people whether its through the computer or not.

The problem is, you dont know that. That is called speculation. Even Thomas Jefferson said that there is no evidence that copyrights would in fact help the advancements of the arts and sciences. There was no evidence then there is no evidence now. If you look at the past, there was no incentive for many of the things that people did, as a matter of a fact most incentives were direct by usage, not through public manipulation.

Yes but under that context, all human beings are FREELOADERS!! Think about it, what have we ever done for the sun? What have we ever done for the rain? What have we ever done for the oil and minerals we extract from the earth? We are getting these thigns for free from nature, and we dont do anything in return...

Oops, my mistake, I think the visual uniqueness part, is about trade mark not copyright.

YOU'RE A SHEEP!!!!!!!!!! IF YOU WANT TO SUPPORT ARTISTS, PIRATE MP3S!!! 90% OF A CD GOES TO THE COMPANY THAT MADE IT!!! ONLY $1 OR SO ACTUALLY REACHES THE ARTIST

"Sheep"?
 

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
ericsl@softhome.net

Are you instane? How do you know what the year 2010 will hold. For christ's sake....there will always be a SS#.

huh? 2010?

WHAT?


ummm i thougth it was 2001... maybe i have been sleepign too long?

hehehe


gosh, it's late and i need some sleep

Re: Unbelievable
 

Yes, but don't forget that laws are not set in stone, and they must serve the needs of a society. It's clear that clients such as Napster and Gnutella exist because of failures in the pricing schemes of those below-mentioned companies. Martin Luther King was breaking the law for years before people finally woke up and changed an unjust law. The question really is whether it's just to put people in prison for copying such material. Does the punishment fit the crime? Are the current laws reflecting the needs of our society? "Breaking the law" alone is a moot point--the real issue is WHY are people doing it? The answer: because the laws are unjust and fail to provide for our modern society's needs. It used to be that artists couldn't exist without the publishing house because there were no means to distribute the music without one. Now, publishing houses are obsolete--and to compensate for their dwindling importance, they're lobbying for stricter copyright laws which don't even serve the artists themselves, and which threaten to keep the web stuck in a pen-and-paper age. We should all be proud, as King's supporters were, to break arcane and unjust laws.

How full of sh*t are you!!

You are comparing a great man, Martin Luther to File COPYING programs.. Get with it..

You can try and try all you like to justify breaking the law but anyone with half a brain can see that THE reason that its successful is because you are getting SOMETHING for NOTHING!!

END OF STORY!!

Artists get free exposure
 

20 years ago industry spokespeople said that the VCR would bring about the end of the movie industry--in fact, it increased revenues after the industry adjusted to incorporate the technology instead of fighting it. Multiple studies have been shown that there are similar benefits to artists and record label by the non-profit sharing of mp3s. People who download 1 or 2 mp3s often go out and purchase the entire album. Often, mp3s are the only way a person can listen to the unplayed songs on an album and realize what a gem the album is--so the mp3 actually enables them to make that purchasing decision. Yes, people do get music for free, but that free music informs their next trip to the CD store, and perhaps is what gets them to buy the mug and the bumper sticker and the t-shirt and go to the concert as well. You can moan about the mythical lost revenues, but the fact is that mp3s are getting music to many people who wouldn't have paid for it anyway--and many of these people DO go on to support the artists in other ways. It's a two way street--some people get music for free, and some artists get exposure for free, exposure that leads to other sales. If you look carefully at things without screaming "END OF STORY," you might find out that the real mp3 story actually includes a win-win situation for both parties involved.

RUBBISH! We've heard all these points before, and they've been proved crap.

If it was increasing income - then the artists, music labels and all those involved in the supply chain wouldn't be complaining would they??????????

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.

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).

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??

"but the fact is that mp3s are getting music to many people who wouldn't have paid for it anyway"

Hmm.. The other day I found a set of keys to a persons Lamborghini. He never uses it - it just sits there in his garage. so I stole it. Which is OK since he never uses it. I wouldn't usually steal things, but since I foudn the keys.. that makes it OK.

That's the logic you are using. Think about it.

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.

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.;)

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.