Until two months ago? Suddenly I was getting messages that I was not uploading enough..The site seemed to only be limiting me an upload(of Legal Torrents of 3kbs) I did not figure it out until someone told me that I can Donate and be given a credit....DING DING...I get it know...The old Bait and switch trick!
#14170 by (User) at 2005-09-04 05:45:24 GMT (22 hours ago) - [ ] |  |
 | This is the Best Site on the net! Period! But I am about to give up? I can not upload....Uggg Why? I am forced to go to other sites where I get fast uploads? I am connecteable...it is only this site...I have been having problems for months..... I am about to give up...... Last edited by tripw at 2005-09-04 05:47:43 GMT |
 |  |  |
| #14171 by (Master Uploader) at 2005-09-04 05:49:15 GMT (22 hours ago) | |
 | Tripw you could always donate 
|
 | | |
| #14172 by (User) at 2005-09-04 05:54:44 GMT (22 hours ago) - [] | |
| Ahhhh.....Is that the Catch? I guess It all makes sense now..... Thank you for paniting me the picture! I get it now. Still a Great site! I am currently uplaoding at 3kbs.....thats about the last straw... Thanks Guys  P2P and Pay to P2P – Two worlds colliding Read More Here: http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=898 Last edited by tripw at 2005-09-05 03:48:13 GMT |
P2P and Pay to P2P – Two worlds colliding
September 4, 2005
Nick Parker
| Regarded as an evil fit only for eradication from modern society, P2P has been blamed for everything in recent years from moral turpitude to funding international terrorism. |  |
However, if reports are to be believed there has been a very subtle shift in favor of P2P and file sharing over recent months, driven largely by encroaching commercialization. Does the future of P2P therefore lie in total commercialization, resisting commercialization altogether or through some emerging middle ground?
Many who use P2P are highly resistant to the ingress of commercialization, and it is clear to see where they are coming from. Commercialization is inevitably accompanied by increased regulation. Licenses have to be negotiated at national levels with record and film distributors, costs have to be covered, profits have to be made, local sensitivities and censorship issues have to be addressed and so forth. Increased regulation is seen as a threat to the independence of the net and those who use it. History tells us that once the floodgates of regulation are opened, they are seldom closed.
Let’s consider the film industry as an example. Traditionally they have staggered release dates to optimize the return on their investment. In practice this meant that there could often be a six month delay between the release of a film in the USA and release of the same film in other English speaking countries. And when the film is finally released in these parallel markets, there have still been rather quaint local censorship issues to contend with. Having seen the first Austin Powers film in both the US and the UK, I recall that certain humorous remarks about UK dentistry were edited out to avoid offending the English audience, leaving parts of the edited film totally incomprehensible. In more extreme cases, such as Madonna's video for American Life, the whole thing had to be scrapped to avoid causing offence to the American audience.
This naturally entices people to filesharing, where unedited films and episodes of popular American TV shows are made available on the web sometimes even before they are released coast to coast on American TV – which can happen as a result of differences in time zones. Equally importantly, it costs nothing to share. The fundamental criteria for popularity are therefore satisfied; availability for download at no cost to the individual yet at negligible risk.
Therefore filesharing is seen as a means of freedom of expression, a means of being part of a larger global community where the all-embracing nanny state cannot suffocate freedom of thought and expression in the name of protection. A community which offers an infinite catalogue of variety, a source of free uncensored entertainment. Perhaps considered as a state of anarchy by some, people are quick to forget that the Internet has developed as a result of people investing their time and money for scientific and educational reasons – cooperation on a global scale - and not merely to stuff our mailboxes full of unwanted junk.
It certainly seems that the mass acceptance of iTunes and the proliferation of its competitors has played a part in popularizing the concept of downloading music from the Internet. Many people have questioned why they should be expected to buy music they already own on CD or vinyl for the second time, simply so they can play it on their iPod or other players. This appears to be attracting first time users to consider P2P as a viable means of obtaining MP3 copies of the music they already own. Unsurprisingly, neither the MPAA/RIAA nor other copyright enforcers are very keen to disclose the actual figures or admit this is in fact what is happening.
Some of iTunes competitors are turning to P2P to aid in their distribution model, and have vaguely repackaged their own offerings to exploit the upload capacity of their clients and reduce overheads – Peer Impact, for example, claiming that they are passing savings on to clients in the form of discounts against future purchases through a system of credits and affiliate marketing. Others are introducing “walled networks”, such as Playlouder as part of an ISP package to attract users by offering inclusive downloads.
The widely respected BBC are no strangers to innovation, and have been pioneers in the development of Teletext (extended closed caption) services along with introducing terrestrial digital television and digital radio. The “leak” of the recent BBC Dr Who series on the Internet was surely no accident, for the BBC revelled in the free publicity it attracted. Especially given that this was followed by their foray into the world of P2P, offering classical music for download followed swiftly afterwards by their announcement that they are now launching a “simulcast” web service to broadcast TV programming concurrently over the web. When the BBC, who claim to be the world’s first broadcaster, does something, it is with the tacit approval of their paymasters – the UK government. More to the point, they are usually hugely successful in setting trends.
The BBC are not the first to offer such a service, and Homechoice (to name only one example) have been offering their own flavor of broadband IPTV to millions of Londoners for some years. Indeed, the founding of Homechoice inspired cable providers to compete with them, increasing competition, lowering costs and increasing choice for the consumer. Profits therefore clearly attract competition which, in itself, resulted in this instance in an improved service at a more competitive cost.
The introduction of capped services by ISPs is a curious anomaly. It makes one wonder if this is happening in spite of forthcoming IPTV or because of it. One thing is for sure, upload speeds are going to have to increase along with download speeds and caps are going to have to disappear altogether if the market is going to be worth exploiting.
This leads us back to what many regard as the inevitable commercialization of P2P. The figures released by Cachelogic tell us that 60% of all Internet traffic is generated by P2P users. Common sense tells us that without P2P and the profits derived from this activity, investment would cease, bandwidth would remain as it is or could even contract and the Internet could risk stagnation. Common sense likewise tells us that without incentive, the artistic industries would also stagnate – and we could eventually run out of things worth downloading.
Is there any emerging middle ground? Perhaps Creative Commons licensing offers a way forward, a middle ground which allows commercial exploitation of technology yet retains reasonable control over the copyrighted material and recognizes fair personal use. For those unfamiliar with the terms, a Creative Common License generally retains the originators rights’ to control the way their works are used, but also generally allows copying and fair use by the individual for non commercial purposes. Perhaps “reinventing copyright” describes their purpose extremely well.
We’ve all heard the claim that “the Internet wouldn’t be where it is today if it weren’t for pornography”. Whether this is true or not, there can be no doubting an emerging symbiotic relationship exists between the very activity condemned by the industry as being both immoral and illegal – P2P - and the continued development of the Internet for everyone. The dichotomy being that the Internet itself breaks down national boundaries and helps the free flow of information between the citizens of various nations whilst offering the best possible medium for controlled distribution.
One thing for sure, the stalemate isn’t going to be broken by taking 12 year old school children to court for something they could otherwise do by simply taping radio programmes. The sooner the MPAA/RIAA and their supporters realize that this is not the way forward and the marketing guys and lawyers keep their greed in check whilst a solution evolves, the sooner the Internet can progress to the next stage in its' development.
Nick Parker is a former EMI corporate lawyer and is currently based in London, England. Nick is also an active member in the P2P community and has previously had articles published by P2Pnet.net. Some will know him as Rocketman05.
You can discuss this article here - 12 replies
c3
StumbleUponsTweaks& Tricks
Join
Our→ Discussion
the rest of my pages:
c3's
Digg Feedc3's Delicious Feed
c3's Clipsand Games
TBAAnything Goes Here! New!
Posted by JimmyO | 
Story Tools![[Print story]](http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/2002091452/www.wired.com/news/v/20020914/images/storytools_print.gif "Version of this story optimized for printing"){kind=small}
![[E-mail story]](http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/2002091452/www.wired.com/news/v/20020914/images/storytools_mail.gif "E-mail this story to a friend"){kind=small}
Rants + raves
