<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: File Share Top Ten</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1890/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1890</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:56:06 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1890/comment-page-1#comment-3398</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:41:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-3398</guid>
		<description>yeah man, i&#039;m kinda disappointed that the fileshare top-ten so closely resembles what you get on tv and radio :(

i guess that&#039;s cause most kids are told what to like by MTV, regardless of how they get it, p2p or otherwise.

ah well, at least the crud-majority of stuff that gets shared on p2p isn&#039;t in my face :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yeah man, i&#8217;m kinda disappointed that the fileshare top-ten so closely resembles what you get on tv and radio <img src='http://www.p2pnet.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>i guess that&#8217;s cause most kids are told what to like by MTV, regardless of how they get it, p2p or otherwise.</p>
<p>ah well, at least the crud-majority of stuff that gets shared on p2p isn&#8217;t in my face <img src='http://www.p2pnet.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1890/comment-page-1#comment-3397</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:19:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-3397</guid>
		<description>what crud people download..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>what crud people download..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1890/comment-page-1#comment-3343</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:41:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-3343</guid>
		<description>Now, if only P2Pnet would provide top 10  hashlinks! (we can dream, can&#039;t we?) I wonder if BigChampagne&#039;s  competitor Webspins also publishes a top 10 list?

You can be assured that the industry will be actively poisoning the P2P networks with fake files for most of the top 10 entries. The old &quot;search and download&quot; method is likely to get you a folder full of fakes. 

This also may lead to an interesting situation: the more a certain file is spoofed, the more it will be re-searched and re-downloaded - hence the higher it will rise in the chart if  BigChampagne&#039;s rankings are based on search requests alone. By comparison, an equally popular Indy track which does not get spoofed would then likely be ranked much lower.

But BigChampagne does indeed browse users&#039; hard drives. According to the October 2003 Wired article, &quot;BigChampagne can determine that, say, 58 percent of people with a Norah Jones song also have at least one track by John Mayer.&quot; Ironically, the RIAA lawsuits have forced many P2P users to disable file browsing - and even spurring the development of clients like Zultrax which spoof search results to protect users - therefore obstructing the collection of the very same consumer data that they so highly prize. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now, if only P2Pnet would provide top 10  hashlinks! (we can dream, can&#8217;t we?) I wonder if BigChampagne&#8217;s  competitor Webspins also publishes a top 10 list?</p>
<p>You can be assured that the industry will be actively poisoning the P2P networks with fake files for most of the top 10 entries. The old &#8220;search and download&#8221; method is likely to get you a folder full of fakes. </p>
<p>This also may lead to an interesting situation: the more a certain file is spoofed, the more it will be re-searched and re-downloaded &#8211; hence the higher it will rise in the chart if  BigChampagne&#8217;s rankings are based on search requests alone. By comparison, an equally popular Indy track which does not get spoofed would then likely be ranked much lower.</p>
<p>But BigChampagne does indeed browse users&#8217; hard drives. According to the October 2003 Wired article, &#8220;BigChampagne can determine that, say, 58 percent of people with a Norah Jones song also have at least one track by John Mayer.&#8221; Ironically, the RIAA lawsuits have forced many P2P users to disable file browsing &#8211; and even spurring the development of clients like Zultrax which spoof search results to protect users &#8211; therefore obstructing the collection of the very same consumer data that they so highly prize.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
