Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: open
A study by anti-fraud firm MarkMonitor has offered a snapshot into the changing nature of online piracy.
It monitored illegal traffic levels on 43 file-sharing sites and found that they generated more than 53 billion visits per year.
Mark Mulligan, an analyst at research firm Forrester, points out that the numbers of visits does not necessarily equate to the number of downloads.
But it does show that commercial file-sharing sites, alongside other non-network based methods, are becoming as popular a way of sharing pirated music and films as peer-to-peer technologies.
"These upload sites index their files. It is very easy and convenient," he added.
A friend of mine wanted to watch his favorite tv-series on Hulu, so he paid 20 EUR/month. Not to Hulu but to a VPN service so he could pass the country blocking.
Plus I really wouldn't like to have my collection on a hard drive. If it were to break, get stolen or stop working I would freak out with a five mile blast radius.
Why would anybody want a collection at all? What I want is every movie and every piece of music ready for streaming at my request. Like my napster flatrate. I pay 9 EUR/month and can access millions of songs.
Because as soon as you stop paying the 9/month you don't have those songs anymore.
I would bet that half of the users of pirated video etc, could well afford what they steal.
The problem is the industry which still wants to make the same high profits from this new low cost virtual distribution channel that they enjoy from the much higher cost physical distribution channels.
Most people wouldnt walk into a store and steal a DVD, because of repercussions.
Films cost an incredible amount of money to make and distribute
7 minutes of adverts is hardly a huge imposition.
Not because of repercussions. Most of us think that breach of copyright and theft are not morally equivalent. The classic Jefferson argument.